They are going to try and control what you can read!

originally posted by: loam

Good summation.

No, it's not.

Despite what this hyperbolic blow-hard claims, status as "fake news" has nothing to do with whether it contradicts a preferred narrative.

A story is fake because it's demonstrably false.

A news outlet is fake when it traffics heavily in demonstrably false news.

These are not lies of omission, or subtle deceptions. These are blatantly false stories that can be identified as such very quickly.

a reply to: Greggers

M'kay. Sounds like a wonderful standard. Who decides?

No potential for abuse there.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: loam

It's not coming...it's already here. Twitter is already doing it.

AAAAAND guess who's next to be added ? ATS, it will go that far.

So much for the New world order only being a conspiracy theory huh? they need to control the narrative because they are engaging in a coup right now.

OH and 200,000 ISIS members i mean *coughs* "syrian refugees" are waiting to be deployed. at a time...like this.

its a hostile takeover by the left.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: butcherguy

And then throw in what is happening on college campuses. and you really have to shake your head:

Things are really getting out of control.

That's why they want college to be free for all. It's called "indoctrination" and not only does it squeeze any room for rational thought from your brain, it squeezes your pocketbook so you'll be beholden to that debt for the rest of your working life.

That's also why, slowly, a high school diploma became worthless. So not only do they WANT you to attend for the above reasons, they are literally making it practically a requirement in order to get a job.

It's indoctrination, no two ways about it.

originally posted by: butcherguy
Liberals used to be against book burning.
We are seeing them asking for it to occur now on the Internet.

Yet amazingly, you can go to an actual library and read books with real information as much as you'd like. You're just too lazy.

originally posted by: thegeneraldisarray

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: butcherguy

And then throw in what is happening on college campuses. and you really have to shake your head:

Things are really getting out of control.

That's why they want college to be free for all. It's called "indoctrination" and not only does it squeeze any room for rational thought from your brain, it squeezes your pocketbook so you'll be beholden to that debt for the rest of your working life.

That's also why, slowly, a high school diploma became worthless. So not only do they WANT you to attend for the above reasons, they are literally making it practically a requirement in order to get a job.

It's indoctrination, no two ways about it.

Indoctrination, educating young people...however you want to spin your self disappointment for not getting a degree.

Seriously kids, go to school. The boogeyman will not harm you for getting an education in chemical engineering.

DO NOT LISTEN TO THESE PEOPLE FROM ATS. THEY HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO FUNCTION IN A MODERN SOCIETY.

PROMOTE EDUCATION!!!!!!! DENY IGNORANCE!!!!!!

I would say that what they are doing, opens up new opportunities for people who want to start their own internet company. I would say google and twitter will lose, roughly half of their sponsors, using the election result as a base. Maybe I am wrong, but someone could make a lot of money here. I mean, do you want to use a site that limits your information, or would you use a site that doesn't. It is all up to the people to choose, right?

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Greggers

Sounds like a wonderful standard. Who decides?
No potential for abuse there.

Clearly there would need to be due process. But the types of stories I'm speaking of wouldn't last long under scrutiny.

originally posted by: thegeneraldisarray

That's why they want college to be free for all. It's called "indoctrination" and not only does it squeeze any room for rational thought from your brain, it squeezes your pocketbook so you'll be beholden to that debt for the rest of your working life.

That's also why, slowly, a high school diploma became worthless. So not only do they WANT you to attend for the above reasons, they are literally making it practically a requirement in order to get a job.

It's indoctrination, no two ways about it.

Wait... what?... you just completely contradicted yourself there...

Who's "they" exactly, that want education to be free?
Then, what exactly is bad about free education? I think all education should be free too, and not just an option for the wealthy.
... and how exactly does free education "squeeze your pocketbook and make you beholden to debt for the rest of your working life"?

It seems you are very confused.

So what? We shouldn't have universities be free? ... and you think college education is indoctrination?

The great thing about university education is that it is largely self-directed, so a student gets to form their own opinion. If they disagree with something they have these things called libraries and online journals, that allow them to read a range of differing opinions, and form their own ideas.

Only the un-eductated think that university education is indoctrination, it shows how very little they know about actual education, and funnily enough have let themselves be indoctrinated by media and propaganda.

Try expanding your horizons.

Google released a paper a few months back about building an algo to detects sites that have google approved facts boost those sites and demote sites that contain "facts" that are not google approoved. Remeber this is from a company ran by eric schimdt who was revealed by wikileaks as wanting to harvest android phone users data to make a huge database of all voters in order to manipulate them into voting for hilary.

Spread the word about what google is doing before it is too late.

When ever you hear someone say "GOOGLE IT" like a brainwashed zombie make sure you correct them and tell them why they should "google it".

a reply to: Whereismypassword

I really would not want to get rid of all the false information on ATS, such that I do understand there is sometimes some false information posted here.

One of the things that I really like about ATS is that this is a site where false information can be discussed, and exposed for what it is.

If anything, ATS is a place where volunteers (the readership) can vet information content. I love that!

So false information on ATS? BRING IT ON

Time to get to work for us!

a reply to: Riffrafter

Ummm....no.

FaceBook is a public company not a private corporation.

Sorry if I confused you. It is not a government entity, so it can do whatever its board of directors wants. Better?

20 years ago they used to call it "net head".
Too much conflicting information that can't be verified by peoples old trusted methods.
It effects people who are new to wide open internet content the most.
Over time people usually adapt and learn how to parallax media sources with many different spins, but it takes longer.
Obama is correct, some people will never be able to do that safely.
I don't think any of us are completely immune but the vetting that occurs within interactive forums like ATS certainly helps.

They will always try to enforce a code for those they wish to read and write only what they dictate. I can't see it ever being different. The great divide.

In other words, social media and constant information are bad things

Well, the truth is that they are bad in many ways. People now are less educated and less capable of critical thinking because they are constantly bombarded with crap, not to mention having no attention span and no maturity because they just want to talk to their friends all day and play stupid facebook games.

I saw this firsthand working at job corps. Young people today can't go 10 minutes without texting their friends or watching youtube videos. Young people with no options throw away the chance to have a decent paying career for a lifetime because they'd rather screw off with their phone all day than work and study 6 to 12 months.

I do think there needs to be something done, probably some kind of rating system like we have for video games. Sites that don't have credible or reliable or legible (or accurate) sources should have to be on a separate top level domain or something- like dot .alt instead of .com

Hopefully someone will buy this idea from me

A week later, and 'fake news' is still in the news...

In another thread, I argued against a point being made that the MSM was somehow better than the 'blog' sites, because they didn't represent people sitting at a computer and spewing bias. Accordingly, I did some light research and will repeat it here:

I challenge anyone to demonstrate a preponderance of MSM news reporting that isn't derived from published government sources, published business sources, published press statements, or a rehash of some other MSM source. And given this year's performance by the MSM, any argument they are less biased is beyond ludicrous.

Moreover, if you think the MSM isn't equally a bunch of 'people sitting at a computer', you'd be wrong. The number of field correspondents has long been eviscerated.

Here's some light reading from the Pew Research Center:

State of the News Media 2016

Eight years after the Great Recession sent the U.S. newspaper industry into a tailspin, the pressures facing America’s newsrooms have intensified to nothing less than a reorganization of the industry itself, one that impacts the experiences of even those news consumers unaware of the tectonic shifts taking place.

The overall newsroom workforce experienced its sharpest decline since 2009. According to the American Society of News Editors’ Newsroom Employment Census, after falling 6% in 2012 and 3% in 2013, overall newsroom employment was down 10% in 2014 – the most recent year for which figures are available – to 32,900. Between 1994 and 2014, the profession has shed over 20,000 jobs, representing a 39% decline.

Don't think the remaining 61% are hitting the streets...that is unless they're actually physically delivering the newspapers themselves.

While ASNE will not release 2015 figures until later in 2016, it is likely that 2015 will also experience a noticeable decline. Major staff cuts occurred between April of 2015 and spring 2016 at the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News, Tribune Publishing (including the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune), the Wall Street Journal, the New York Daily News, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Orange County Register, McClatchy’s foreign bureaus, the Seattle Times and Newsday, the Denver Post and the Boston Globe. (Globe editorial employees also spent one Sunday helping to deliver the paper.)

Foreign bureaus are in decline:

Shuttered bureaus

Between 1998 and 2011, at least 20 US newspapers and other media outlets eliminated all their foreign bureaus, according to American Journalism Review (ajr). Elsewhere, the number and size of those bureaus of have shrunk dramatically.

Link.

See also:

Newsonomics: The halving of America’s daily newsrooms

Newspaper reporter is on the list of most endangered jobs. Again.



Employment picture darkens for journalists at digital outlets

With fewer journalists working today, reporters are becoming increasingly concentrated in coastal cities, investigative journalism and local statehouse reporting is declining, and the ratio of journalists to public relations specialists is widening.

Imagine that. All the blue states. What could possibly be wrong with that?

More:

With fewer journalists, but financial pressure to adapt to low advertising rates, papers and digital outlets are incentivized to focus on shorter articles that cost less time and money to produce. Reporters feel pressure to write stories that get more clicks—and outlets like the Oregonian and the now-defunct Gawker considered using metrics to help determine how much reporters should be paid.

In this economic environment, greenlighting time-consuming, in-depth reports that may get less traffic than lighter-fare articles has become increasingly rare. A recent report by Mother Jones in which a senior reporter worked four months as a corrections officer exemplifies this tension. The massive 35,000-word report exposed corruption in private prisons but conservatively cost $350,000 to produce and only brought in $5,000 in banner ads.

I think it's pretty clear, there is little meaningful difference between the two worlds at this point.

Except, one is trying to protect its turf by discrediting the other.

I think it's important to make a distinction between fake news and biased news.

Fake news is news which is demonstrably false with a modicum of fact checking.

While the MSM has been caught doing this from time to time, it's exceedingly rare and it's always big news when it happens. The alt press, however, trots out fake stories consistently.

a reply to: loam

wow!

Can't have a different pov to the Agendas now can we? We can't have people knowing or telling the truth.

Word on the street is Obama is going to focus on news via social media/alternative outlets after his Presidency. And there is talks of a Netflix series.

Absolutely hilarious stuff. The media outlets are already 125% left wing biased, like we need even more???

I report that Donald Trump probably dyes his hair...

Is that fake news since I have no proof?

I can base my assumption on the fact that no one at 70 years old has a head full of orange hair with no grey, so he obviously dyes his hair....

I have no proof so that is now fake news?

Can I be sued for libel for claiming he may dye his hair?