ATS made the list. We are somebody now

a reply to: UKTruth

The establishment move to brand sites as fake is a clear attack on all of us. No introspection is required to understand that.

In what way is it an attack on "all of us?" In fact, who is "all of us?"

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

The establishment move to brand sites as fake is a clear attack on all of us. No introspection is required to understand that.

In what way is it an attack on "all of us?" In fact, who is "all of us?"

This community.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

The establishment move to brand sites as fake is a clear attack on all of us. No introspection is required to understand that.

In what way is it an attack on "all of us?" In fact, who is "all of us?"

This community.

And how is a cable network lumping a bunch of websites together an attack on "our community?"

a reply to: Springer

So I have been pondering the basis of ATS's philosophy.

Over and over mods and management have explained that the veracity of stories and fake news and false reporting is the responsibility of the community to debunk, not managements.

I am not opposed to that thinking. The idea that all news, stories and conspiracies, fake or not, should be published and propagated and that in the end the community, the public voice, is best qualified to discern the truth.

The most ridiculously fake news story can lead the front page of ATS unless a member of the community debunks it and alerts the mods. That has some interesting virtue in placing the responsibility for journalistic integrity with the readers not the author. It is a faith worth exploring.

How is Wapo's article or Propornot different? Should not the public be trusted to decide for themselves whether ATS is spreading Russian propaganda or not? Rather than ATS or others threatening Libel Suits and legal action? People claim whatever they like and the reader is responsible for believing or debunking?

By Propornot's definition ATS qualifies, though the average reader of that article might not fully understand what qualifies to land on that list. ATS is rapid and consistent in posting Fake News and much of it does in fact originate from Russian propaganda campaigns. ATS also is a free and open forum where that news is challenged and sometimes debunked....emphasis sometimes..but again that is the communities failure, not management.

Propornot's inclusion of ATS on that list was not incorrect by its definition. Fake stories are promoted here..but they are guilty of half-truth themselves in that those same stories include posters questioning them..albeit less now than lately..questioning fake news here lately earns quick and fierce attacks.

So...shouldn't the public be left to discern the veracity of ATS? Is that not the ATS philosophy? True or not, it is the readers responsibility, not the managements, to call BS.
It would seem in threatening legal action, that is contrary to the premise of ATSs trust in public discourse and its ability to Deny Ignorance?

I don't know about this philosophy... about reader's responsibility.

Should a president be surrounded by lying and scamming advisors sharing intentionally false intel, trying to con the President and it be up to the President to figure what is real?

Should school teachers be feeding false history and misinformation, lying about math and science, and place it on the student to figure out what's real?

Should con artists and scammers have such protections? Stealing money from elderly, scamming them, and it be the responsibility of the victim to know they are scammed.

Information source is either that or a fraud. Con men should not be protected, and this protection of fake news is a protection of fraud. And it's dangerous. People vote for presidents based on this information, parents make decisions about the health of their children based on information.

Saying it is up to the reader... well by that rationale, I should be able to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater and if the people around me are too dumb to see there is no fire, it's on them.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

The establishment move to brand sites as fake is a clear attack on all of us. No introspection is required to understand that.

In what way is it an attack on "all of us?" In fact, who is "all of us?"

This community.

And how is a cable network lumping a bunch of websites together an attack on "our community?"

Quite obvious really. If a narrative gets hold that the 'list' is a real representation of fake news then traffic could decline, advertising revenues could fall, the sustainability of the site could become untenable. All website 101 type stuff, really.

a reply to: Indigo5

Because WaPo is not an open source of user generated content. It is edited content. The general public does not get to discuss the content with the author and explore further and challenge/debunk. WaPo is news media, not a discussion forum. As such the editor(s) become responsible for content and can and should be sued for printing/publishing lies that can damage the finances and reputation of others.

a reply to: UKTruth

Please take no offense, but my post was not to you. I don't find my exchanges with you to be with an honest broker. Of course feel free to respond to my posts, as I am sure you will, but understand this will be my last response to you on this forum.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
I don't know about this philosophy... about reader's responsibility.

Should a president be surrounded by lying and scamming advisors sharing intentionally false intel, trying to con the President and it be up to the President to figure what is real?

Should school teachers be feeding false history and misinformation, lying about math and science, and place it on the student to figure out what's real?

Should con artists and scammers have such protections? Stealing money from elderly, scamming them, and it be the responsibility of the victim to know they are scammed.

Information source is either that or a fraud. Con men should not be protected, and this protection of fake news is a protection of fraud. And it's dangerous. People vote for presidents based on this information, parents make decisions about the health of their children based on information.

Saying it is up to the reader... well by that rationale, I should be able to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater and if the people around me are too dumb to see there is no fire, it's on them.

That is the dangers of the "bubble"...anforum allowing diverse views challenging one another is the anthisis of that.

That said, I have been a proponent of ATS moving obviously fake stories to the hoax bin and have been told that is not their gig..they don't debunk and only move a story to hoax once a community member has demonstrated it is fake and then alerts the Mods. Until then it can sit on ATSs front page indefinetly.

Dp

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

The establishment move to brand sites as fake is a clear attack on all of us. No introspection is required to understand that.

In what way is it an attack on "all of us?" In fact, who is "all of us?"

This community.

I don't feel attacked by this site being labeled as a Russian propaganda outlet.

Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Clyde Lewis, David Icke, and Jordan Maxwell managed to escape the $$. They went to get help. Whatever you do don't look the All Seeing EYE in the sky in the eye til then. I don't want to become a bar of soap

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Russian women are schmokin---Me neither.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: amazing
ATS is not Russian propaganda! LOL

If anything, we could be labeled as right wing propaganda as we get way more of that in the political threads. But...even that's not true...I think is is a pretty open place to discuss anything. Any propaganda get's bashed pretty well and thoroughly.

Does it? Is that why most posters here believe Infowars and RT are more credible than CNN?

Is it most posters or just a vocal minority. One thing about infowars and RT and a few other sites is that they do report actual events/news that CNN/FOX don't cover. It's not that CNN/FOX are fake news but it's that they don't report things or when it comes to politics they only report one side. It's become necessary to get actual news from other less reliable sources. That's a problem.

originally posted by: ezramullins The Washington Post published a list of websites they claim are Russian propaganda sites and ATS made the list!

Well that explains why I got a Russian virus on ATS a few years ago.

a reply to: amazingIs RT actually on American TV somewhere? I have only seen it on YouTube.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: UKTruth

Please take no offense, but my post was not to you. I don't find my exchanges with you to be with an honest broker. Of course feel free to respond to my posts, as I am sure you will, but understand this will be my last response to you on this forum.

I am not offended, I am positively delighted.
The point, however, stands. WaPo is an edited news outlet, not a forum of user generated content. The comparison was a poor one.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
a reply to: amazingIs RT actually on American TV somewhere? I have only seen it on YouTube.

Not sure. I only catch stuff from them online.

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

Get over yourself this site is many things but a fake russian propganda site it is not. It is user gernerated and that in itself means it going to reflect a lot of diferent views on things from around the world. If you want fake news you would be better off watching the main stream media.

a reply to: Indigo5

So...shouldn't the public be left to discern the veracity of ATS? Is that not the ATS philosophy? True or not, it is the readers responsibility, not the managements, to call BS.

Yes - and that goes for WashPo's readers too

The marketplace is flooded with fake news and propaganda. Now everyone is in a panic? How funny is this?

It's not actually. Senators are now talking about weaponized news... That can't be good. People thinking of suing everyone (same as Donny)

I read through the comments section at the Washington Post all the time. Same for several other established news sites. Minus the UFOs and lizard people stories, the comments there are not that different from what you see here in the political forums - especially lately

I don't belong to any of those sites, so I only read - never post. What I love about ATS is that it's an organized, moderated community, so it's much easier to have an actual back and forth instead of just posting a few thoughts and moving on

What I notice out there - same as here - is that we are all having conversations that are legitimate conversations no matter who is involved. But, some of the posters are obviously, how shall we say this? Role playing? Even at WashPo

The comments that follow a legitimate news story are as much of an attraction for those news sites as the actual stories. Otherwise they wouldn't have a comments section. As much as this is about journalism it's obviously also about revenue

Maybe I'm seeing this story differently than everyone else, but the very thing that WashPo is suggesting happens at the sites on that list is happening in their own comments section

I don't see this so much as being about ATS promoting fake news or propaganda - this is just fertile soil

Same as everywhere