Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:29PM   Printer-friendly
from the peeling-the-onion dept.

The Washington Post published an interview [...] with Paul Horner, who has made his living off of writing viral news hoaxes on sites like Facebook for the past several years. "But in recent months, Horner has found the fake-news ecosystem growing more crowded, more political and vastly more influential: In March, Donald Trump's son Eric and his then-campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, even tweeted links to one of Horner's faux-articles. His stories have also appeared as news on Google."

Although Horner compares himself to parody and satire sites like The Onion (though less obvious), he's now concerned about the influence of fake news. A few excerpts from the interview:

On why he has seen greater popularity recently:

Honestly, people are definitely dumber. They just keep passing stuff around. Nobody fact-checks anything anymore — I mean, that's how Trump got elected. He just said whatever he wanted, and people believed everything, and when the things he said turned out not to be true, people didn't care because they'd already accepted it. It's real scary. I've never seen anything like it.

How he thinks people should treat his fake news:

I thought they'd fact-check it, and it'd make them look worse. I mean that's how this always works: Someone posts something I write, then they find out it's false, then they look like idiots. [... But] they just keep running with it! They never fact-check anything!

On the recent push by Facebook and Google to target fake news sites:

Yeah, I mean — a lot of the sites people are talking about, they're just total BS sites. There's no creativity or purpose behind them. I'm glad they're getting rid of them. I don't like getting lumped in with Huzlers. I like getting lumped in with the Onion. The stuff I do — I spend more time on it. There's purpose and meaning behind it. I don't just write fake news just to write it.

[...] I'm glad they're getting rid of those sites. I just hope they don't get rid of mine, too.

Related reporting from Alternet.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:37PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:37PM (#432417)

    He gets sick to his stomach when he sees another businessman with his own ability to play gullible people on the Internet, combined with an utter lack of scruples or concern for consequences. It's self hate.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:51PM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:51PM (#432425) Homepage

      I mean, that's how Trump got elected. He just said whatever he wanted, and people believed everything, and when the things he said turned out not to be true, people didn't care because they'd already accepted it. It's real scary. I've never seen anything like it.

      No, that's not why Trump got elected. The easy answer why he did was because people are getting fed up with government bullshit and the liberals' insane attacks on not only free speech but legitimate alternative sites such as Zerohedge and Breitbart. The left progressives are the party of oppression now, not the gun-toting rednecks, and even their own kinds are aware of their hypocrisy.

      I doubt its self-hate. It's probably just another leftist moron surprised Trump won. When you do satire, you have to make it somewhat clear that its satire. If the guy is self-loathing, then he's a self-loathing sperg or autist.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:56PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:56PM (#432429)

        Another leftist is a vaguely similar boat is Michael Moore. His movie was actually promoted by Eric Trump and others in the Trump campaign.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by fritsd on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:21PM

        by fritsd (4586) on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:21PM (#432444) Journal

        The left progressives are the party of oppression now, not the gun-toting rednecks, and even their own kinds are aware of their hypocrisy.

        Could you please give a link explaining how the Green Party or Jill Stein or the Humane Party or the Party for Socialism and Liberation are the party of oppression now?

        Yes, I'm taking the piss, because the Democrat Party is economically quite far right, just like the Republican Party. You hardly have *any* left progressives.

        Somehow, there's a big gaping crater in the centre of the surface of political compass of the USA, that nobody dared to fill up.

        Like where the German SPD or the Dutch PvdA or the French PS occupy quite a broad blot, overlapping with the other large parties. Economically centre-left, party for the working class people, socially centrist to slightly progressive. Normally attracts 30-60 % of voters depending on what they did wrong in the previous government. Why do you not have representation for those voters? It is weird.

        In Britain, Tony Blair dragged the Labour Party (which occupied that spot) to the right, with his neo-liberal politics. Maybe Obama and Clinton(s) dragged the Democrat Party too far to the right, too.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:52PM

          by digitalaudiorock (688) on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:52PM (#432457) Journal

          Could you please give a link explaining how the Green Party or Jill Stein or the Humane Party or the Party for Socialism and Liberation are the party of oppression now?

          I'm seeing a trend now where any accusations of "fake news", even when true...something that everyone should be appalled by...are being branded as some sort of attack on free speech. This is almost indistinguishable from the manner in which everything related to race/gender/sexual preference equality, along with countless other important issues, have been trivialized and branded "political correctness". So that's apparently the "oppression" going on here. This "fake news" is apparently the new politically correct SJW snowfake...whatever all that shit's supposed to mean.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:27PM

            by jmorris (4844) on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:27PM (#432469)

            Because we have all seen the list being floated around the Left and their media operations, they all unerringly point back to a list put out by Melissa Zimdar, an until now utterly unknown cog in the Prog brainwashing machine. Almost like an order came down on a hidden listserv, but we know that is juts conspiracy theorizing. (cough, journolist, cough)

            Google will give you her list easy enough and ALL of the leftist hate targets are on there, deemed 'fake news' and ready for the banhammer. So carry your lying ass off somewhere stupid, clueless folk congregate because you can't sell it here.

            Yea there is some chaff on that list, some real clickbait typosquatters and such, but it isn't hard to notice Project Veritas, Breitbart, The Blaze (crazy but not fake), Twitchy, Zerohedge, RedState (cucked, not fake), IJR, etc. The only one who didn't was Drudge but we know that oversight will be corrected. Now note who ISN'T on the list. No Progressive outlet, not even Huffington Post.

            • (Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:52PM

              by digitalaudiorock (688) on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:52PM (#432482) Journal

              No Progressive outlet, not even Huffington Post.

              Wow...There's a big difference between slanted and fake. There are sites out there swearing that Trump won the popular vote ffs.

              • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday November 24 2016, @10:32PM

                by butthurt (6141) on Thursday November 24 2016, @10:32PM (#432633) Journal
                • (Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Friday November 25 2016, @04:40AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 25 2016, @04:40AM (#432742) Journal
                  I too overwhelmingly won the popular vote (apart from people voting for candidates running for election and a bunch of write-ins who weren't).
              • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday November 25 2016, @05:13AM

                by jmorris (4844) on Friday November 25 2016, @05:13AM (#432753)

                There's a big difference between slanted and fake.

                One word: Wikileaks. Peddle that shit elsewhere pal, HuffingPaint wasn't biased, they were on the same Org Chart with HRC.

                Now, compare the made up shit they were doing, including that bullcrap "disclaimer" on every article and tell me why they are "real news" and breitbart.com is "fake news." Remember, that is what is under discussion here, please try to keep up. Considering their editor in chief did end up in the Trump White House you could argue (and I wouldn't seriously dispute) they are AS BAD as Huffpo.

                • (Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Friday November 25 2016, @02:50PM

                  by digitalaudiorock (688) on Friday November 25 2016, @02:50PM (#432850) Journal

                  Peddle that shit elsewhere pal, HuffingPaint wasn't biased, they were on the same Org Chart with HRC.

                  Much the way Fox News is always on the Republican "org chart", and while they're biased, I wouldn't lump them in with "fake news" sites either, even though they often get their facts seriously wrong.

                  The fact that you think HP is "fake news" is a pretty good sign that you believe sites that actually are.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @03:06AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @03:06AM (#432721)

              Still not engaging with reality huh?

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @07:53PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @07:53PM (#432542)

        > ...left progressives are the party of oppression...

        There are barely any "left progressives". I presume you're talking about the center-right Democrat party? I recall the Occupy movement, which would be more like left progresives, getting pretty much fucked over by all and sundry in politics. Don't recall our new savior Donald being on their team. Those darn oppressors.

    • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:53PM

      by LoRdTAW (3755) on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:53PM (#432428) Journal

      He's just jelly he didn't con as good as dump to make all that paper.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by IndigoFreak on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:37PM

      by IndigoFreak (3415) on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:37PM (#432451)

      He's just as dumb as the people he's insulting. He states that he thought they would fact check and then look dumber, but since they don't fact check they never get to step 2 of his plan. But did that stop him? No he just keeps peddling his bullshit. If that was his true goal he would stop since if failed. But it isn't his true goal. He just wants to look smart and is making up reasons as to why he peddles lies. Big surprise there, known liar lies when asked why he lies.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by driven on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:09PM

      by driven (6295) on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:09PM (#432463)

      Since the media is a) allowed to lie, b) distorts facts routinely, c) routinely covers news in a biased way, d) can be censored by the president and we have little or no way of fact checking what's reported ourselves, is it really surprising that people would choose the "coverage" that is most comfortable to them? It can also be viewed as a "tit-for-tat" situation which escalates: the "other" side is lying, so I'm going to lie to make "my" side look better.

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @06:49PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @06:49PM (#432505)

        > d) can be censored by the president

        What?
        Was the 1st amendment repealed while I was too busy playing pokemon to notice?

        • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday November 25 2016, @02:00AM

          by dry (223) on Friday November 25 2016, @02:00AM (#432695) Journal

          1st amendment only stops Congress from passing laws limiting speech.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @05:59AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @05:59AM (#432763)

            And what law enables the president to restrict speech?
            Because I don't see it in the constituation and if congress hasn't passed such a law giving presidents that ability, then they do not have it.

            • (Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Tuesday November 29 2016, @12:22AM

              by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 29 2016, @12:22AM (#434288) Journal

              In case you're sincere the US government all the way from the POTUS up at the top and on down to some cops have openly not followed the US constitution for quite a while, not even in general, just as an example what do you think NSLs (National Security Letters) are for except to stop people from talking? They've defined "legal" as whatever they do.

              Plenty of people ought to pay closer attention to what Wikileaks has been releasing and what real news sites have been reporting, most of the people who did voted for Trump and bless them for it because it was the only way to avoid another Clinton and now Jill Stein has pulled a Sanders much like Johnson did, the people who didn't read Wikileaks and the Podesta and DNC files only come across as paid astroturfers and/or completely uninformed.

              But at least the fake Soros-funded "protests" pretty much stopped once the paid participants became aware of armed citizens keeping an eye on them, suddenly $35 an hour wasn't such good pay any longer and the middlemen had to cool it while hoping they could find a different batch of uninformed suckers to bus in for any later attempts.

              That's great, nothing is better than avoiding both WWIII and also a civil war, so far so good and let's hope that remains the end result. Then one can start getting back to the actual law and building the US society back up into what it was meant to be → MAGA.

              --
              Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by quintessence on Thursday November 24 2016, @07:47PM

        by quintessence (6227) on Thursday November 24 2016, @07:47PM (#432537)

        That's a pretty unsavory reading of people.

        People need accurate information to make decisions, and they know it. Too many falsehoods and you are not long for this earth.

        Internal biases play a role when evidence hasn't risen to the level of irrefutable, but for the most part I doubt people choose news that fits into their worldview as much as the perception of lying to them less.

        This whole notion of fake news has less to do with keeping people informed as much as further manipulating them through censoring "for their own good".

        I distrust anyone who would lord information over me, even false information. It's my mistake to make, and once a news outlet has proven to be less than trustworthy, *I* can make the determination not to bother with them anymore.

        Hence the disgust with the mainstream media across the board.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:01PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:01PM (#432548)

          > People need accurate information to make decisions, and they know it. Too many falsehoods and you are not long for this earth.

          That's only true when the feedback loop is short enough for the consequences to have an immediate impact.

          People are really good at responding to short-term results. But the more distance between cause and effect and the more we suck at addressing the cause. Look at all the people who continue to smoke cigarettes - everybody knows smoking kills. But plenty of people wont' stop smoking because the consequences of smoking the pack that's in their pocket right now are years in the future, but the reward is immediate.

          Same thing with fake news. People get an immediately emotional charge out of having their beliefs confirmed. But if turns out to be false, so what? Its not lie caused them to drive into a tree and get injured. It confirmed their view of the world and even if it was wrong, they are still right big picture. And then two months or two years down the road they make a decision based on their feelings without even realizing those feelings were informed by a multitude of lies over time. They choose what they think is right without deeply examining why they think its right.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by quintessence on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:31PM

            by quintessence (6227) on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:31PM (#432567)

            First, comparing fake news with addiction is just... no.

            People's beliefs aren't set in stone, and are continually modulated, even in small ways, with new information they get. And that's from all sources, not just the news. While there may be some issues people are particularly irrational about, if it was all confirmation bias the no news source would matter: people would just ignore any information that didn't correspond with their worldview, so censoring the news wouldn't matter anyway.

            We already see people tend to get more conservative with age. If new information had no affect on people, this wouldn't be the case, and in fact the last elections corresponds more closely with age differences than most other metrics.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @09:29PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @09:29PM (#432601)

              > First, comparing fake news with addiction is just... no.

              Well, that's a non-rebuttal. It is like addiction because dopamine response. But there are tons of other examples. Over-eating. Reckless driving. Unprotected sex with strangers. The list of stupid behaviors that people indulge in because the consequences are not immediately apparent is essentially infinite.

              > People's beliefs aren't set in stone, and are continually modulated, even in small ways, with new information they get.

              Eh, that's a cop-out. You are arguing that because confirmation bias is not 100% that it isn't a huge factor. And you are trying to black-and-white it by saying the only option is censorship. Except no one has said the government needs to get involved.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:40PM

    by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:40PM (#432419) Journal

    Remember the Maine, WMDs, and 16 negative Bernie Articles in 16 hours. I've blocked the WAPO in /etc/hosts so I never accidentally give that piece of toilet paper traffic. Wish others would do likewise.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:00PM (#432431)

      Negative articles about Bernie? Wow... must be trash journalism then.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:43PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:43PM (#432454)

        That's the insightful analysis you get from these guys today. If it makes me butthurt, then it is clearly biased so I'm running back to the "news" outlets that tell me things that I already believe, because that makes me feel good (and smart).

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:24PM (#432445)

      > 16 negative Bernie Articles in 16 hours.

      They also ran 16 positive Bernie Articles in 16 hours too. [washingtonpost.com]

      So totally a bunch of liars.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:01PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:01PM (#432432)

    This 'fake news' meme seems to be the Progs answer to why they lost and since the election they have been purging hard. It has even made it here! I'm just hoping that they believe their own bullshit and avoid the painful self reflection required to understand why they actually lost and how they might correct the mistakes they have been making and adjust to the reality that their monopoly on information distribution is lost. So you guys go right on believing that purging harder, punishing crimethink even more severely, displaying a bit more of the haughty scorn for 'the little people' will work.

    But for the few who are curious as to what really happened, take a look at the wipeout in Congress and the State houses that has been going on for several cycles now. Been going on a lot longer than Mr. Trump has been anything more than a reality star. How just having a chink in the armor or total information control the size of one dipshit on AOL almost cost Bill Clinton his Presidency, and what he did was a mere fraction of what you guys effortlessly covered up for JFK. Well now it ain't just drudgereport you have to worry about. You can't lie and cover up your criminality anymore and since those are the very heart of Progressivism you have a problem.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:05PM (#432434)

      The conclusion of the "painful self reflection" is that there are more voters out there like you, Buzzard, and Runaway than we suspected. Which, when combined with the assistance of the Russian government and FSB, was evidently enough to put even an obvious con man like Trump in the WH in charge of our military, the economy, and climate change.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by jmorris on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:16PM

        by jmorris (4844) on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:16PM (#432440)

        Bzzt. Wrong answer. Go look at the election returns for that last couple of cycles. The Republican numbers have been remarkably stable, showing little variation. It is the Democrat column that is interesting. It varied about eight million from the "Hope n Change" high in 2008 to the dismal turnout in 2016. Especially in the Rust Belt States that the election turned on. For all the saturation media about what a *ist Trump was, all the #NeverTrump virtue signaling by (((certain people))) off in a corner doing something pointless with Gay Mormon, in the end the Republicans turned out about the same number of people at the polling places. They were only slightly different people but the fact it didn't hurt the down ticket means they were close enough to Republican they voted like one all the way down so it was more a case of motivating a different subset to come out and vote for Trump.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @06:38PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @06:38PM (#432499)

          Shhhh! At this point, I'm tempted just to let it be, and let the liberals dig themselves in deeper.

          ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE DUMB. ALL TRUMP VOTERS ARE RACIST. ALL RIGHT WING NEWS IS FAKE. DRINK YOUR OVALTINE.

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @06:43PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @06:43PM (#432503)

          > It varied about eight million from the "Hope n Change" high in 2008 to the dismal turnout in 2016.

          2008 was the highest percentage turnout in decades. Incumbent parties generally lose enthusiasm the longer they are in office. In fact, the number of times a party has held the presidency for three terms in a row is exactly once since FDR's four terms resulted in the passage of the 22nd amendment limiting a candidate to two terms. You are ascribing meaning to facts that are meaningless. Pretty standard for the alt-white because y'all are kinda stupid that way.

          > #NeverTrump virtue signaling by (((certain people)))

          Take your racist shit somewhere else.
          For anyone else reading along who doesn't know what that racist goatfucker just did: triple parentheses [wikipedia.org]

          • (Score: 2, Informative) by jmorris on Friday November 25 2016, @05:40AM

            by jmorris (4844) on Friday November 25 2016, @05:40AM (#432756)

            > #NeverTrump virtue signaling by (((certain people)))

            Take your racist shit somewhere else.

            The meaning is a bit more subtle than the progs at Wikipedia are going to be able to grasp... or allow anyone else to edit in. The "stormfags" use it as a bludgeon against anyone known or suspected to be Jewish or sympathetic to them. Nazis hate Jews, here is my shocked face. Most of the rest of the Alt-Right use it to call out Jews who don't call attention to their tribal allegiance to a foreign power as they expound on what "we" Americans should do. I was mostly ripping on the #NeverTrumo guys, who are dominated by the NeoCons, who are almost all Jews. They grabbed their ball and left the Party, I want to make sure they stay gone, that the door stays closed to their return. It is doubly pathetic in the case of guys like Kristol and Goldberg since Trump is probably more pro-Israel than they are themselves, they just fear Trump really means it when he says he doesn't plan to shed a lot of American blood in the Middle East fighting pointless wars.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @06:01AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @06:01AM (#432764)

              > The meaning is a bit more subtle than the progs at Wikipedia are going to be able to grasp...

              Take your racial realist "nuance" shit somewhere else you goatfucker. It ain't subtle. You are a fucking nazi, so fuck off.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:02PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:02PM (#432460)

        It wasn't Russia, it was aliens. Get your story correct, man! There needs to be someone scary to blame and that someone cannot be able to refute the allegations. If it wasn't aliens you would have to do some soul-searching.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @07:33PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @07:33PM (#432528)

        Can you really not just accept that Clinton was a terrible candidate who couldn't get enough people excited enough to vote for her in order to actually win? Blaming everyone else is just pathetic. The DNC and the people who voted in the primaries had a chance to put forth a better candidate who would have probably won against Trump, but they failed to do so. You can therefore add Hillary Clinton to the list of those responsible for Trump winning.

    • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:36PM

      by fritsd (4586) on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:36PM (#432448) Journal

      Could you explain why average people would consider voting for the Republican Party?

      I'm not trying to troll; honest.

      I'm just curious which positive acts and policies the average people believe that the Republicans will do for them.

      I heard the slogan "make America great again!" but what is it supposed to mean.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:08PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:08PM (#432462)

        I heard the slogan "make America great again!" but what is it supposed to mean.

        It means about the same as "Change we can believe in".

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @07:41PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @07:41PM (#432530)

          > Change We Can Believe In

          Ok, the Obama campaign published a 64-page plan detailing exactly what that meant.
          They called it The Blueprint for Change [ontheissues.org]

          Here's the TL:DR:

          1. Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy so there would be less need for abortion
          2. Protect consumers with Credit Card Bill of Rights.
          3. More accountability in subprime mortgages.
          4. Fight job discrimination to give women equal footing at jobs.
          5. Remove discriminatory barriers to the right to vote.
          6. Reduce recidivism by providing ex-offender supports.
          7. Ban racial profiling & eliminate disparities in sentencing.
          8. Fight to rid our communities of meth.
          9. Expand drug courts; help prisoners with substance abuse.
          10. Children’s First Agenda: zero to five early education.
          11. $4,000 college tuition for 100 hours’ public service a year.
          12. Reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.
          13. Passed tax credit for installing E85 ethanol at gas stations.
          14. Regulate animal feeding operations for pollution.
          15. Expand flex-work & Family and Medical Leave Act.
          16. More Transition Assistance for displaced workers.
          17. Shine light on federal contracts, earmarks, & proposed bills.
          18. Ended corporate jet travel subsidized by lobbyists.
          19. No one turned away due to illness or pre-existing condition.
          20. Buy private insurance via National Health Insurance Exchange.
          21. Expand Peace Corps and AmeriCorps to 266,000 slots.
          22. Pursue goal of a world without nuclear weapons.
          23. Improve veterans’ mental health treatment & PTSD benefits.
          24. Immigration raids are ineffective.
          25. Fight attacks on workers’ right to organize & strike.
          26. Focus farm programs on family farms, not giant corporations.
          27. Stop any efforts to privatize Social Security.
          28. Incentives for next-generation broadband in every community.
          29. Two-state solution: Israel & Palestine side-by-side in peace.
          30. Create 20 Promise Neighborhoods in high-poverty cities.

           
          Obviously not everything was accomplished, but a lot of it was and most of it was at least attempted. You know who was pretty dedicated to stopping change.

          So, you were saying about MAGA? What specific policies and more importantly how will we know when america achieves greatness again? What's the benchmark?

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:09PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:09PM (#432555)
        • My brother voted for Trump because he hopes Trump will be sufficiently different from the Republican establishment that the party will fracture. He hopes that the Democratic party will also fracture over the issue of whether nominating Hillary is what cost them the election, and over what sort of candidate they should have nominated instead. This sort of fracture would normally trigger a realignment into a different pair of parties within an election or two; however, with at least 4 parties, he hopes a couple of them will get on board with score voting (which helps third parties, and thus will never happen while we have 2 parties in control) and push it through during the chaos, thus preventing us from falling back into the 2-party system. (To be clear, he didn't think this was the most likely outcome from a Trump win, but thought there was enough chance to be worth gambling on; I told him he's being too optimistic.)
        • My father, if you were to ask him, voted for Trump principally because he hopes the ACA will be fixed or repealed. In reality, it was also because he hates Hillary, and also because he's a lifelong Republican, despite his claim to be independent -- there was no realistic chance he would have voted for any Democrat, and only a minimal chance of voting Libertarian, Constitution, or some such. He's a diabetic, and self-employed (thus no employer-provided insurance), with poor financial self-control; thus he was "unable to afford" health insurance pre-ACA (i.e. he burned all that money on discretionary expenditures), and it wouldn't have covered his diabetes-related care anyhow (pre-existing condition). Post-ACA, diabetes-related care would be covered, but he still "can't afford it" (same as before) -- only now he blames his inability to afford it on Obamacare.
        • Some folks I know around here (Rust Belt state) feel strongly that free-trade agreements are a/the main reason for high unemployment and falling real wages (i.e. stagnant nominal wages + inflation), and hope Trump will axe TPP and maybe repeal/withdraw from NAFTA. There's another, overlapping group that thinks the same problems are principally the results of too many Mexican immigrants flooding the labor market, and are really hyped about the wall / deportation stuff. These overlapping ideas are perhaps the ones I hear most in the media, but it wasn't that prominent among my acquaintances.
        • There are also a few who don't have any specific hope for Trump, but just see him as the lesser-evil vs. Hillary, who around here is near-universally believed to have ordered the murder of Vince Foster. (I think my Mom is in this category, but she doesn't like talking about politics.) Faced with Trump's ugliness, they might have crossed party lines to vote for Generic Democrat (some of them did vote for Obama), but they won't for Hillary.
        • Probably the biggest group I know personally would list gun rights as their primary reason. This is mainly in two forms, both more about fear of Hillary than trust of Trump. (Trump's talk of national concealed-carry reciprocity is a distant third, having met with a surprisingly ambivalent reception, with more people than I expected concerned about the states' rights implications.)
          • There's the concern that Hillary will appoint horrible judges to the Supreme Court, and that they will reverse Heller and similar. There's not much optimism that Trump appointees would, say, declare the NFA unconstitutional, just that they won't reverse the recent victories.
          • There's an absolute certainty that Hillary will implement some sort of incremental program of registration, bans, and confiscation of handguns and/or semi-auto rifles; the fact that they were just as certain about Bill Clinton (who, to be fair, did get a 10-year ban on new "semi-automatic assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines) and Barack Obama (who couldn't/didn't accomplish any laws even when he had a Democratic congress, though he did what he could in the executive branch) doesn't give them pause. Again, they're voting for Trump defensively -- not for anything he will do, but because he won't push for these restrictions.

          To understand these reactions, you have to understand that, right or wrong, most rural gun-owners today have had their attitudes shaped by the great leaded-gasoline crime wave, when decades of increasing crime in cities led to continual cries for restrictions on gun rights for everyone. A lot of them are still single-issue voters, seeing in every new election a battle to retain the rights they have, even though at this point that's probably a little paranoid. They don't realize the pendulum has started to swing back as a lot of people (in both parties) realize that crime is now going down, and that it never had that much to do with guns in the first place. Democratic congressmen without a personal gun-control agenda are less likely to get on board, and Republicans are more likely to push back. It's not a revolution, but it's enough to shift the balance so that we're unlikely to see any serious push for gun laws, either restricting or liberalizing, in the next 5-10 years. (With the possible exception of the Hearing Protection Act, which we had an article about earlier this week -- suppressors are just inoffensive enough I can see it passing, though I could also see Republicans balking to avoid alienating voters they may need to survive the midterm backlash.)

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:02PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:02PM (#432433) Journal

    sabayon-pc guy # emerge false-news

    * IMPORTANT: 2 news items need reading for repository 'gentoo'.
      * Use eselect news read to view new items.

      * Last emerge --sync was 11d 22h 12m 46s ago.
    Calculating dependencies... done!

    emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy "false-news".

    emerge: searching for similar names...
    emerge: Maybe you meant any of these: sys/MSWindows?

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fritsd on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:08PM

    by fritsd (4586) on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:08PM (#432436) Journal

    Fake news doesn't exist.

    Reasoning:

    - There is an item of fake news
    - It corresponds to my belief of how the world works, therefore I accept and believe it
    - Later, people try to convince me that it was fake news
    - If it was fake news, then that implies that I was gullible to accept and believe it
    - I know for sure that I'm not gullible!
    - If I'm not gullible, and I accepted that news item, then that implies that the news item was real!
    - Ergo it wasn't fake news.
    - Furthermore, the people trying to convince me that it was fake news, are themselves gullible, or are trying to trick me.

    There, now wasn't that a nice piece of logic ;-)

    I'm curious what percentage of people really think like this.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:09PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:09PM (#432437)

      I had a sudden flashback to my college class on Shakespeare when I read your post.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Yog-Yogguth on Tuesday November 29 2016, @01:18AM

      by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 29 2016, @01:18AM (#434299) Journal

      Bet you didn't think you would get a reply saying the following :)

      Lots of people "think" that way (or similar) but thankfully not everyone all the time, you and I do it too at the very least once in a while even if we don't like to admit it because it's human nature to make such fallacies and it's human nature for a reason because in specific circumstances it's even (shock, horror) defensible or highly advisable despite being nothing but a string of disconnected fallacies.

      Was i wrong? :D

      I mainly wanted to point out that the point you're making is valid specifically because what you wrote isn't logic! Haha! X) Or at least not valid logic and not valid reasoning either :) People who don't believe me only have to learn actual logic and might find it helpful to get familiar with logic symbols such as these [wikipedia.org].

      And still sometimes (or often) despite all that it is not only useful but recommended as a short-cut to avoid wasting time on too much of the too noisy "information" which we're all swamped in. So thus while it's not valid logic and not valid reasoning it still ends up being rational! :D It really is horrific! And thus confirmation bias is born (and that's the rub, the other side of the coin, the loose ends that can turn into a noose).

      Yeah I'm trying to trick unsuspecting readers into going off and learning logic.. I'm really evil lol :3

      --
      Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:15PM

    by opinionated_science (4031) on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:15PM (#432438)

    As a scientist, it has become necessary to filter information into 3 bins.

    1) Empirically derived information supported by repeatable observations or experiments, supported by logically consistent framework.

    2) Empirically derived information supported by unrepeatable observations or experiments, supported by a mostly logically consistent framework, dependent upon the degree of unrepeatable observations or experiments.

    3) Everything else.

    Depending on your belief system, you might think everything you read is in one of these bins, and the degree of inflation (from 3 upto 2 or 1 ) probably indicates your ability to critically think.

    Work is somewhere between 1) and 2). Occasionally approaching 3).

    News is definitely 3).

    • (Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:41PM

      by Non Sequor (1005) on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:41PM (#432480) Journal

      Information accumulates in bin 1 in a rigid fashion with new information and derived conclusions not perturbing earlier accumulations. Information in bin 2 might accumulate in a metastable fashion with reconfigurations in logical frameworks sometimes occurring when it results in conclusions with a greater explanatory value. Bin 3 may tolerate conflicting information but it also makes little use of derivations of conclusions of existing information, which means that this kind of accumulation is also stable.

      These three modes of filtering the information coming from the world are generally stable under updates. They make use of strategies that typically have the effect of new information not undermining existing knowledge.

      There is another update strategy that is also stable. Actually, it's a class of strategies. If you assign credibility to empirically derived information and you use a form of logic that is tolerant of contradictions imposed by low credibility information, you can make logical derivations on your strongest credibility information that are essentially internally consistent. Two methods of assigning credibility can both result in a stable worldview while assigning divergent credibility to the same pieces of information.

      It is difficult to use information in Bin 3 as the basis for taking some kind of action in the world. On the other hand, using this kind of credibility-based updates for information that would otherwise end up in this bin yields conclusions supporting taking various actions. To the extent that the world requires that some choices be made (where doing nothing is also a choice), this becomes a necessary evil in human affairs.

      --
      Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:59PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:59PM (#432458)

    This guy thinks he's a satirist, but then he admits to specifically targeting right-wingers because they don't fact-check and are thus the most profitable. Satire isn't written to trick people, its written to skewer the people being satirized. If some damn fool is fooled, that's funny but that's not the intent. Before some genius says that fooling people is satirizing them, no its not because if you are one of the readers isn't fooled the article has nothing to say to you.

    BTW, anyone who listens to talk radio would never be surprised that right-wingers are suckers. For reasons I don't want to get into, I listen to right-wing talk radio at all hours of the day and all of the national ads on there are scams. Superfoods, herbal supplements, gold & silver traders and homeopathic cures. The left-wing barely even has ads, its 90% NPR which, at most, runs brand recognition spots. The other 10% like Pacifica don't run ads or only run ads from businesses local to the affiliate.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:23PM (#432562)

      For reasons I don't want to get into, I listen to right-wing talk radio at all hours of the day and all of the national ads on there are scams. Superfoods, herbal supplements, gold & silver traders and homeopathic cures.

      The pants are a lie!

      Or is Glenn Beck not shilling for that khaki shop anymore?

      And ISTR Hannity's radio show mostly advertising a steak house chain; I don't think they were spinning that as a superfood.

      What I'm saying is, either you've got a classic case of confirmation bias, or talk radio's sponsors have changed a lot over the past... decade?! (I didn't realize it had been that long until I stopped to think about it; maybe you're right.)

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:15PM

    by PizzaRollPlinkett (4512) on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:15PM (#432465)

    So who gets to decide what "false news" is? Some algorithm? A corporation which does censorship? The government?

    After all, critics have called Fox News "faux news" for many years. I suspect "false news" is going to come down to "news I don't agree with" much like calling anyone you disagree with mentally ill.

    So do we want corporations controlling the definition of what is real and false with algorithms (or Mechanical Turk style outsourcing)?

    Wait, before you answer, remember the media mergers going on. LinkedIn is going to be owned by Microsoft soon. They have curated news links, but no one pays attention to them. What happens in a few years, as a hypothetical, when AT&T or Verizon buys out Facebook?

    We sure don't want the government deciding what is real or fake news. We've already had that whole revolutionary war thing and freedom of the press as part of the constitution.

    Honestly? I think "fake news" is a sign the system is working fine.

    --
    (E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @07:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @07:52PM (#432541)

      > So who gets to decide what "false news" is?

      Obviously the people who write it. This guy deliberately set out to write fake news.

      > Honestly? I think "fake news" is a sign the system is working fine.

      No, its a sign that the internet is really good at tearing down corrupt institutions but utterly shite at creating new institutions to replace them. For all the bitching about the corrupt media, they had standards. They failed to meet those standards often enough, but 9 times out of 10 they did a good job. They fact-checked, they verified with multiple sources, they passed on stories that couldn't meet those standards and when they screwed up, they were accountable. They printed retractions, they had mechanisms for public self-criticism through an ombudsman, they even fired people who were just too egregious. Even when those people had long distinguished careers (e.g. Dan Rather, Brian Williams).

      We are on the way to replacing all of that invisible infrastructure of integrity with ... nothing. Why? Because the human endeavor of journalistic integrity was imperfect. We've turned hysteria over imperfection into an indictment of complete failure. We have made the perfect the enemy of the good and as a result thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by gidds on Friday November 25 2016, @12:51PM

      by gidds (589) on Friday November 25 2016, @12:51PM (#432836)

      Well, for starters, how about the dictionary?

      true, adj., adv., & v. adj. (truer, truest)
      1. In accordance with fact or reality (a true story).
      2. Genuine; rightly or strictly so called; not spurious or counterfeit (a true friend; the true heir to the throne).
      ...

      It doesn't take a corporation, government, or authority of any kind to distinguish genuine from fake; it just takes an ability to identify claims and assertions and compare them with reality (inasmuch as it can be determined).

      As I said here recently [soylentnews.org], what I don't understand is why people attach so little importance to doing so...

      --
      [sig redacted]
      • (Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Tuesday November 29 2016, @02:06AM

        by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 29 2016, @02:06AM (#434308) Journal

        I agree but... :)

        It takes a lot of work that's why. I'm not claiming to do it to any great extent because I know I spend a hell of a lot of time just keeping up with the more-or-less uncontroversial news (well and a little science, space, some computer stuff and other stuff like that) generated by 8 billion people and that's part of why I'm always late on SoylentNews (I'm below 600 unread stories on the SN RSS feed now, triage is the name of the game). Even if you don't do something from scratch but only go through every little piece that someone else has documented (a situation which is rare to find oneself in to begin with because plenty of people won't even provide links never mind detailed reasoning) it would take ten or a hundred times more time than I have (and I'm an unproductive loser somewhere close to the end or reincarnation so good luck to anyone who actually does important stuff like having a life). It would be great if we could create tools that made all this much easier, it will happen some day (and I love SoylentNews), it kind of must (RSS helps a lot, I'm thinking about whether one could build something more specialized on top of it ← might be the wrong direction).

        There's a reason why other places I won't mention by name (and don't visit except a few times a year because I don't have the time!) talk about weaponized autism, they're right about that :)

        And the rabbit hole is always deeper no matter how many actual Wikileaks files and actual Snowden files you read. Thus people need to cut it off at some point and unfortunately many cut off at "listening to the news" and some (perhaps even more) at "whatever I already believe" or "whatever my parents/peers/friends thought/think" or "the opposite of whatever...".

        Often it's hard to blame anyone for that (as if one has any right to blame them anyway since it's their life).

        I suspect people who either despair or celebrate at this —at that insight— turn into some form of fascists (including those opting to create or peddle lies for personal gain of some sort) and people who don't despair are able to believe in some form of democracy and/or freedom/liberty.

        So I guess I'm saying: don't despair :) (and always remember to take breaks! There's more to life than being "right" or knowing "the truth").

        --
        Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
  • (Score: 1) by ilsa on Thursday November 24 2016, @06:27PM

    by ilsa (6082) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 24 2016, @06:27PM (#432494)

    This isn't a new phenominon. Fox News has already clearly demonstrated that there is a great deal of money and power to be gained by peddling bullshit to people who only want to hear what they want to hear, even if it's an outright fabrication.

    The only thing special now is that the anti-intellectual demographic has now gotten big enough, and feel validated enough, that the market for bullshit has now increases substantially.

    This sort of thing can't happen, for example, in Canada, because there are laws governing what a program that calls itself 'News' is allowed to say. That's why there's no Fox News in Canada, and the few attempts that have been made have fizzled badly.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @06:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @06:41PM (#432502)
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:09PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:09PM (#432554)

        Yup, Snopes is one of the worst.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday November 24 2016, @07:34PM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Thursday November 24 2016, @07:34PM (#432529) Homepage Journal

    The problem, as I've written before, is that someone will be empowered to define what is, and what is not "fake news". That is a lot of power, and it will be abused.

    - The "Flat Earth Society" exists. Do they really believe the earth is flat? Should we censor them?

    - The KKK exists. Stormfront exists. The Communist Party exists. Deluded idiots all. Shall we censor them, too?

    Once an organization starts censoring, the program will only grow. The boundaries will shift. The people empowered to decide what is "correct" and what is "fake" will, inevitably, prefer sites that align with their personal views.

    Since virtually all Silicon Valley companies are SJW-converged, this will inevitably lead to suppression of conservative and right-wing views, while tolerating rather extreme progressive and left-wing content.

    tl;dr: Censorship is censorship, it doesn't matter what excuse is used.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:18PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:18PM (#432559)

      > - The KKK exists. Stormfront exists. The Communist Party exists. Deluded idiots all. Shall we censor them, too?

      Are the KKK censored because the local newspaper won't print their letters to the editor?

      Are you one of those libruls who thinks refusing to support something is censorship?
      Because I haven't seen anyone say the government should get involved.

    • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday November 24 2016, @09:45PM

      by butthurt (6141) on Thursday November 24 2016, @09:45PM (#432609) Journal

      Since virtually all Silicon Valley companies are SJW-converged [...]

      Specifically,

      The following is a list of SJW converged organizations.

              Beamdog
              Django
              ESPN
              Facebook
              Gawker Media
              GitHub
              Google
              The Guardian
              LWN.net
              Mozilla
              National Union of Students (NUS)
              O'Reilly Media
              Reddit
              Shopify
              SocialAutopsy.com
              Strange Loop
              Target
              Twitter
              WTAE Pittsburgh

      -- http://sjwlist.com/Organizations [sjwlist.com]

      The same site offers "a complete catalog of Social Justice Warriors."

  • (Score: 2) by istartedi on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:39PM

    by istartedi (123) on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:39PM (#432575) Journal

    Isn't this just a modern update of tabloids? You know, the dead tree things that used to be our primary source of "fake news" back in the day? They still sell at most supermarket checkout lines. They were mostly celebrity oriented, but I'm sure they did political things too since politicians are just a particular type of celebrity. One of them in particular, World News, actually embraced their falseness and went so far over the top that it was absurd. My favorite was "FARMER SHOOTS 10 LB. GRASSHOPPER", which was accompanied by the analog version of a "photoshop" actually showing a guy holding the thing up like a fish. I couldn't restrain myself from laughing right there in the store.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:50PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:50PM (#432582)

    The short answer to why the Democrats lost the race: You fucked over your allies.

    You alienated the very people you depend on to do your work for you. When they attempted to redress their grievances, you declared war, and them your enemy. Oh, shock, horror, now they are not doing what you want. How could that have possibly happened?

    Looking at the Republicans, and their similar lesson in '08, I doubt many of you will learn. But, with any luck, your incompetence and arrogance will allow someone who actually might be halfway competent and not completely corrupt to take the reigns in 8 years, or if we are lucky 4.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @09:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @09:00PM (#432590)

      No, there is too much bad blood between the liberals and what use to be their core.

      Short of an entire makeover, I think their influence is dwindling as much as the religious right.

      And given the supreme arrogance shown by most of the left still, they are too stupid to realize it.

      I anticipate some other party without as much baggage to take their place.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @03:42AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @03:42AM (#432733)

        That's just wishful thinking.

        Democrats overwhelmingly won with those 45 and under.

        This "bad blood" is with the generations heading into the grave.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @09:08AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @09:08AM (#432795)

          Buy the time the Baby Boomers are a foot in the grave, the young, liberal leaning Millennials will be bitter, world-weary republicans, like every generation that has been burned by DNC lies.

          How's that hope and change doin' ya?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @10:03PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @10:03PM (#433008)

            Actually, political party preferences are very sticky. Sure there are defectors. But people tend to stick with the same party once they make the mental commitment.

  • (Score: 2) by dmc on Friday November 25 2016, @03:42AM

    by dmc (188) on Friday November 25 2016, @03:42AM (#432734)

    He just said whatever he wanted, and people believed everything, and when the things he said turned out not to be true, people didn't care because they'd already accepted it.

    Oh the irony that I have to complain about this statement from this source being wrong, and suspiciously misleading. This is clearly a narrative this person is pushing. I'll push another narrative- "He just said whatever he wanted, and an exceptionally small fraction of people believed everything, while a small fraction believed some things that weren't true, but most people could see the kind of machiavellian quasi-reality-tv-show style campaign based in large part on modern trolling techniques that he was using. When the things he said turned out not to be true, that exceptionally small fraction didn't care because they'd already accepted it, while everyone else continued to see the kind of machiavellian quasi-reality-tv-show based in large part on modern trolling techniques campaign that he was running"

    FCC Complaint ID#12-C00422224-1, + Hillary's Home Email Server = You Do The Math.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by requerdanos on Friday November 25 2016, @07:28PM

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 25 2016, @07:28PM (#432976) Journal

    The Emergence of False News

    I challenge this premise. I have read the recent spate of headlines about the "sudden rise" of "fake news" with furrowed brows. I don't know what's sudden about its emergence nor why certain media outlets are suddenly interested....

    - In the 90's, e-mail and AOL were filled with VIRUS WARNINGs and other such fake news... that dumb/gullible people forwarded at a rate to rival spam.

    - In the decades before that, fax machine in-baskets were filled with things like "URGENT WARNING: Police report that..." followed by some obviously fake news, that people passed along, xeroxed, and re-faxed at a rate that inspires despair in the future of the human race.

    - Snopes has cited fake news "chain letters" as far back as the nineteenth century. People were credulous enough to pay money to spread obviously fake news. Let that sink in.

    I notice a rise of web sites whose purpose is fake news, but again, it's a gradual development over decades, not a sudden phenomenon.

    The human combination of malicious, lying, gullible, and easily fooled is probably a recipe for this "fake news epidemic" to continue for at least as many centuries as it's been going on.

    Is it just me?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @10:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @10:10PM (#433011)

      Come on man. Don't be that guy.

      It isn't about whether or not there used to be fake news.

      Its about how much more widespread it is now.

      All of your examples have very localized effects. The internet hasn't created anything new, but it has made everything much faster. In the past bad effects were constrained by physical limits. Not so much anymore. Its not just fake news. Its privacy too, just look at all those sites publishing arrest records and then charging people to take their names off the list. Arrest records were always public information, but it didn't follow you around for the rest of your life. Now everybody you meet can google you and find out. That can ruin someone, especially someone who was arrested but found not guilty. The arrest info is hyped up, but the not-guilty verdict isn't easy to find because there is no money to be made extorting people with proof of their innocence.

      • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Saturday November 26 2016, @12:05AM

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 26 2016, @12:05AM (#433038) Journal

        All of your examples have very localized effects. The internet hasn't created anything new, but it has made everything much faster. In the past bad effects were constrained by physical limits. Not so much anymore.

        Well, that's just it... For the past 25 years it's been a flood, not a trickle, thanks to the Internet. It's just Internet-level-faster now if by "now" you mean "for decades now." To be sure, there has been a shift from fake-news email-forwards to retarded social media shares by people who should know better, and a shift from anonymously-authored hoaxes to outright lies from established sites. But the medium hasn't changed the mis-message much.

        Its not just fake news. Its privacy too, just look at all those sites publishing arrest records and then charging people to take their names off the list. Arrest records were always public information, but it didn't follow you around for the rest of your life. Now everybody you meet can google you and find out. That can ruin someone, especially someone who was arrested but found not guilty. The arrest info is hyped up, but the not-guilty verdict isn't easy to find because there is no money to be made extorting people with proof of their innocence.

        The despicable people who do this are, actually, pushing something that is neither "fake" (if I got arrested, I got arrested, that's not fake) nor "news" (if someone got arrested sometime in the past, that's not news). It's slimy and invasive and destructive, but it's neither fake nor news.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @12:41AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @12:41AM (#433475)

          > It's just Internet-level-faster now if by "now" you mean "for decades now."

          No, I mean in the last 5 years or so where facebook has become a common platform. Email still had tons of friction, it was mostly one-to-one. Facebook is effectively one-to-many. The makes it exponentially faster.

          > but it's neither fake nor news.

          That wasn't my point, and I apologize for leaving out the sentences that would have tied it all together. Money is a significant motivator for the creation of fake news. Just like money is the motivator for those arrest record websites. Money isn't the only motivator of people creating fake news, but it is a relatively new one. Fake news didn't used to be profitable enough to support more than a few supermarket tabloids.

          • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday November 27 2016, @11:25AM

            by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 27 2016, @11:25AM (#433602) Journal

            Okay. I see what you mean. This helps me to understand the recent furor over the phenomenon.

            • (Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Tuesday November 29 2016, @06:45AM

              by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 29 2016, @06:45AM (#434370) Journal

              You guys are both talking about something completely different. Nothing wrong about that but it's not what the story is actually about (then again nor is the doofus featured in the summary).

              Here are the lists of "fake news" sites, all of which are likely to be more respectable than the Mass Liar Media, some of which have broken huge stories that went on to dominate the media landscape for months afterwards, some of which are run by/for US politicians or highly respected journalists, and some of which provide important counterpoints to the MLM superficial narratives, and some of which undoubtedly could be shit (I haven't read them all, I have enough to read already).

              The first list [zerohedge.com] (the "liberal" assistant professor list) as mentioned on ZeroHedge (which is one of the "fake news" sites lol).

              The second list [zerohedge.com] (the CIA-funded "PropOrNot" list) also courtesy of ZH (just because I'm being lazy, lots and lots of the "fake news" sites reported on both of these lists).

              Notice how they don't shy away from reporting that people call them fake. I wonder how much reporting CNN did on the fact that people ridiculed them for saying it was illegal for ordinary people to read Wikileaks? (I don't read CNN of course so I don't know, maybe they did give the reactions extensive coverage... yeah right).

              This has all generated a lot of bemusement and mockery as well as yet another look at the general fakeness of MLM like this [zerohedge.com] (also ZH!).

              --
              Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))