Slashdot Mirror
Google To Prohibit Fake News Websites From Using Its Ad-Selling Software (reuters.com)
According to The Wall Street Journal, Google is working on a policy update that will prohibit fake news websites from using its ad-selling software. The move would ultimately make it more challenging for those fake news sites to earn revenue. Reuters reports: The policy change is imminent, Google spokeswoman Andrea Faville told Reuters. "Moving forward, we will restrict ad serving on pages that misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher's content, or the primary purpose of the web property," she said in a statement. The policy change comes amid an intensifying debate over how much responsibility technology companies bear for monitoring the accuracy of content as more and more people access news through sites such as Facebook rather than traditional media companies. Facebook, in particular, has been criticized over the spread of inaccurate articles promoting U.S. president-elect Donald Trump on the site. Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg has denied that the site influenced the outcome of the election. Google's AdSense advertising network is a key financial driver for many publishers. The company places various restrictions on where its ads may be placed, including bans on pornographic and violent content. Work on the policy update began before the election, Faville said.
There's been a shit ton of these stories on the front page already. Isn't there anything better to talk about? This is a big part of why Slashdot sucks now. It used to be a mix of lots of stories that would appeal to nerds, but now we get a barrage of stories about topics like this. Slashdot used to be a site where nerds and people working in IT could get practical ideas and keep up date on trends in hardware and software. Those days are long gone, and Slashdot pretty much sucks now. And no, I'm not saying this isn't relevant, just that we don't need more stories about it.
Fuck AdSense. I've been using software to block that shit for years and if it pisses off Mark Cuban all the better. Fake news be damned. I filter out media bullshit with knowledge anyways.
Do they even make a profit?
We'll see how they do once google peels back all their ad revenue layers.
How will I be able to get my daily ultra-leftist propaganda if those go down?
Just what we need... Google deciding what is and isn't real news. What could possibly go wrong?
What about CNN, that was lying about it being illegal to read Wikileaks? And yes, that was a lie, read this: https://popehat.com/2016/10/17...
Why didn't they want us to know about it? Oh, because we have emails between CNN and the DNC, they leaked the debate questions. Then they brought Donna Brazille on there to tell us they were somehow modified. Except, not so fast, Donna: they have DKIM authentication, which provides non-repudiation. And make sure you actually read the damned DKIM headers, because they include the b and bh parameters. So if you try and tell me they only protect the headers, you're going to get a lecture on the DKIM specification, because you're not just wrong, you can be mathematically proven wrong.
Anyhow, there's no great loss to the clickbait sites. Good riddance to such. However, inasmuch as they believe they can use this to control what people say and believe, I can only remind them of the Streisand Effect and laugh. Google took down the video from this story quite a few times before they started allowing it once it hit the news: http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
In case you're wondering what Snopes says about it, they say it's "mixed." You see, there was a fender bender and the guy wanted to exchange insurance info before they brutally beat him and dragged him from the back of his own car, which they stole while nearly killing him.
The goal is to eliminate "fake" news, but the problem isn't even who defines what is real, what is opinion, and what is factually untrue. The real problem is google has stated its intention is to starve sites they dislike into nonexistance.
Are sites with news about "Ancient Aliens" banned? Easy to show as fake news, but as history channel shows - hugely popular and what many in the public enjoy. Real? Fake? Who cares, the public wants it.
News stories about Clinton Foundation "pay to play" corruption. "Someone" will decide if this is misleading fake news. No convictions yet, must be fake. Ban them and bury the story.
News story about Trump being racist? No proof he isn't, must be legit. Pay the website.
This is how the internet will die, in a flood of corporate decided and approved facts and filters.
Why buy the politicians anymore, when they can own and control what is considered worthy of being "legit"
More people voted for Hillary, Swing states were hacked by Russian hackers, absentee ballots were forged from that data.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/florida-elections-worker-alleges/2016/11/04/id/757191/
"A temporary worker for the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Office in Florida has alleged in a sworn affidavit obtained by Newsmax that she was fired this week after witnessing possible absentee ballot fraud by office workers."
"But the State Attorney's Office concluded Friday that the workers were duplicating ballots by hand from damaged originals faxed by military personnel and that "there is nothing improper or illegal about the conduct" under state law."
Russian hackers propagandized the election all the way through.
Trump isn't America's choice, he's Putin's choice.
For NBC then. Now we need Google to ban:
- sites that intentionally withhold news stories from the public for partisan reasons
- news sites that feed pre-selected questions to a candidate before a debate
- sites that frame Hillary getting investigated by the FBI as "Republicans pounce on Hillary allegations"
- Upworthy
- IPCC predictions
- political polling
- Twitter
- and the rest of everyone trying to troll and clickbait and hyperbolize current events
"Moving forward, we will restrict ad serving on pages that misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher's content, or the primary purpose of the web property".
This is straightforward. Why is everyone acting like Google is trying to control news?
Does this mean I can stop getting stories on my Google News page from 'Ecumenical News' and 'Christian Daily', two religious news web sites that apparently went belly-up some years ago, had their domains purchased by scammers, and now serve clickbait bullshit constantly? All they ever do is somehow zero in on some search term I used recently and then feed me fake headlines about that thing.
Like, for months now, I've constantly had a story on my news page about Rick and Morty (which I searched for one day in July, and these stories started the next day) from one or the other of those sites. Today, it's "'Rick and Morty' season 3 update: Release date revealed and other spoilers" from Ecumenical News. I don't click them; they're just a gibberish mishmash of rumors from elsewhere on the web. I 'Personalized' my Google News feed and set both of these news sources to the lowest they'll go, but unfortunately, it seems impossible to exclude them completely.
Before that, it was a constant stream of rumor-mill bullshit about The Arrow and the drama between cast members. These sites are NOT NEWS, they're just algorithmicly generated clickbait. Preferably, they would both die a fiery death, but in the meantime, if I could just get them off of my news feed, I'd be mollified.
... and why is Google doing the defining...?
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
Of course it will apply to CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post. If it didn't then it would just be more liberal bullshit.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
F**king BeauHD cannot get over the butt hurt of the election. His twitter feed, "Trump is a saggy sack of shit. If any one of you is even remotely considering voting for him this November, please unfollow me. "
"That sack of shit next to Hillary is attracting flies! #debate"
"Clinton wiped the floor with Trump tonight. Say hello to your next president, America!"
" It's only a story because it has the 'Trump' buzzword. Stupid media is stupid."
"I bet Trump hired the climber for publicity."
Right?
He didn't win the popular vote and he didn't win the electoral college. There is no such thing as "copying out Faxed absentee ballot papers", its not a thing. It's an admission of the fraud.
You don't "give him a chance", he's Putin's choice not Americas. That's would be like saying "Oh give this new Vichy French government a chance".
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/florida-elections-worker-alleges/2016/11/04/id/757191/
"A temporary worker for the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Office in Florida has alleged in a sworn affidavit obtained by Newsmax that she was fired this week after witnessing possible absentee ballot fraud by office workers."
"But the State Attorney's Office concluded Friday that the workers were duplicating ballots by hand from damaged originals faxed by military personnel and that "there is nothing improper or illegal about the conduct" under state law."
Policy lags the need and demand for action.
You guys are xenophobic idiots. Go suck Donald's duck.
I'd have thought the election would have calmed you down a bit, Mr Bannon.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Maybe Google should just get out of the censorship business, rather than trying to use their ad service to micromanage what people see and hear. Fake news is not good, but it is not Google's job to "correct" it. By feeding the conspiracy theorists, they are just making the problem worse.
I am an American. and I am ashamed that Donald Jabroni Trump is the President. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Seeing that mainstream media is mostly fake nowadays, news sites should worry. Especially liberal lapdogs like HuffPo, WaPo, CNN and so on.
And what is fake?
Science fiction is fake.
Jokes are most of the time fake.
Hypothetical stories are fake.
The bible is fake.
Inconvenient truths, it is better they are fake
Truths that offend? It's best to not offend, so lets make them fake.
A truth that the government doesn't want to be heard (like the mass rape in Koeln on news year eve)? Now that has to be fake.
A made up story to bring progress in the society? No, progressive news can never be fake.
It is difficult to decide what is fake. We need a ministry of fake stories!
“The fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists”
author not known, but it was not Churchill
Unlike PKI, DKIM has no revocation list mechanism natively. If one were to steal the keys, the best anyone could do is say "No, really, that email that appears to be sent from me and signed by me really wasn't!"
Just saying.
Read the story, not clickbait headlines.
CNN and MSNBC must be furious. Is Slashdot also going to be affected by these?
One lesson (among many) you should've learned last tuesday is that no one gives a shit about Putin. In fact most people think it'd be great if we could get along with Russia. It's not 1965 anymore.
And even if it were true that possessing the emails was illegal, how exactly do you read it without "possessing" it?
I bet if you call us racists a few (thousand) more times we'll finally come around to your way of thinking. It's bound to work eventually.
Polling isn't an exact science. There are plenty of educated (or not) guesses baked into the final result, and the superficial precision of a +/- 3% margin of error is highly misleading.
Now whether the polling companies universally overestimated democratic turnout because of mere incompetence or because they wanted to push a narrative is unknown, at least for now. Calling the polls 'rigged' for Hillary sounds conspiratorial until you remember how completely the rest of the system was 'rigged' for her. (The fact that a few loud people on the right made themselves look like fucking idiots in 2012 with their "unskewed" polls predicting a Romney landslide doesn't help either.)
The author of the Snopes article I'm sure would feel someone beating her up and stealing her car and yelling about how she voted for Clinton was a bit of a mixed bag as well. I mean you can never really know what's in someone's mind, right?
This is just meant to make sure all the media gets the right story, promoting conformity in news. That should make it easier for propaganda to have the desired effect.
A whitelist. Nothing can go wrong with that. Nothing to see here, move along.
Comment: I know people across the political spectrum; most I can have a somewhat intelligent discussion with mutual respect.
Just have the prosecution put up a web site claiming that the accused is guilty and the defense put up one saying innocent, then the judge can check to see which Google accepts or rejects.
Likewise good for hiring decisions, investment decisions, policy decisions etc. Kind of like a boolean Ouija board.
Let's test it on whether we should go see the new Star Wars movie, which doesn't seem to be generating the usual hype.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"Anyone that contests these facts are paid shills for the right, struggling to keep their puppet president in power."
So Hillary and Obama are paid shills for the right? I'm pretty sure they conceded that Trump won the election and asked the country to move on. I never thought I'd see the day when Hillary and Obama would be considered a paid shill for the right!
How exactly will try differentiate between satire and fake news?
The answer is if course that you cannot.
Stupid announcement.
What about CNN, that was lying about it being illegal to read Wikileaks
Technically if you have a clearance it might be illegal to read wikileaks depending on the link used, since that would technically be facilitating the distribution of classified material. Make no mistake about it. Posting something classified on wikileaks does not remotely make it unclassified.
In regards to the election, well Wikileaks was anything but an unbiased source as you can tell from the drip drip and the timing of the releases. Also I recall that not all messages had authentication codes on them, and, well, simply put, even if they did, you can't really prove that they really are original messages, since if you can take over a PC to grab messages, you can likely grab any necessary signing keys to fake more messages, particularly with the resources of a nation state behind you. Were most of the messages probably true? Probably, but trusting that site blindly is still a mistake.
The main failure was the voters. Until voters make the effort to actually fact check and well not use facebook as a primary news source, or really any non accredited source as news, then we have a problem. Fox Lies are a problem, but there are so many niche crap sites that spew whatever crap people want sold. The fact that Trump flat out encourages this nonsense is fully inexcusable and proves he is totally unfit for the job.
He should put country first and quit now before he royally screws over the country. He won't do it though. Just today he said he wanted all his sons to have top secret clearance. You know the same sons that are supposedly going to run his company. They bitched about improper influence from the clinton's, but at least they helped people. The Trump's are perfectly positioning themselves to help themselves.
What they need to do is to sell all trump assets, invest the proceeds into a true blind trust, then have his kids go get jobs somewhere else. The presidency is no place for nepotism.
It's not a "conspiracy theory" if they openly admit it.
> What about Xenographic and his troup of astroturfers, go look at his comment history a fucking liar and traitor to America.... or a hard worker for Putin.
I love how you don't actually refute anything I've said when saying this. Bad start. Yes, the same few people often comment, some even agree with me and I friended one a few days back, but if there's a "troup" or even a troupe I've never been invited.
> Or go look at the video he just quoted, where he says nothing about Wikileaks, and nothing about reading, and says its illegal to possess the emails.
I like that clip because it's short and to the point, but you can watch the longer clip here, which certainly does mention Wikileaks if you prefer. Make sure to compare the two clips so you can see that one is cut from the other. Here's the relevant quote from Chris Cuomo as best I can transcribe it out of the longer clip. I left out at least one "uhm" and added emphasis so you can see where Wikileaks is mentioned:
Moving on, you can't read them without also possessing them, simply because that's how computers work. When you read it, you download it, when you download it, you possess it. This being a tech site, most understand that. And even if they didn't, just how would it make sense for him to say "everything you're learning about this, you're learning from us" if it was perfectly okay, in his view, for those of us outside the media to possess them? The conclusion wouldn't be logical. Am I not supposed to assume that CNN is trying to be logical? It would explain a few things about the coverage....
In the longer clip, you can also see him saying that "emails have been manipulated" but no evidence is given. And when Donna went on the air, she lied about that. I covered the DKIM earlier, as well as how it provides cryptographic non-repudiation and how that specific DKIM header covers the body and body hash and anyone can verify it themselves.
To be fair, CNN "ended" their relationship with Donna. Somehow they didn't catch any of the other people at CNN who were in on it, though. And Chris Cuomo on CNN? He has a J.D. He's a licensed attorney. He has no excuse for getting something like this wrong. Does his bar association know about this?
> You can't even tell the truth once can you Mr political astrotufing. Even when you're selling out your country.
I'm in favor of the truth, no matter who is telling it. I hate being lied to. We saw a whole lot of roaches start scurrying when Podesta's email came to light and they made me sick.
As for comments, you can go back to 2008 when I supported Obama if you like. Like most people around here, I didn't think much of Palin either.
But I thought you said you went through my comment history?
I figured they were referencing this, actually -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
> Unlike PKI, DKIM has no revocation list mechanism natively. If one were to steal the keys, the best anyone could do is say "No, really, that email that appears to be sent from me and signed by me really wasn't!"
Two points:
* There is a way to revoke the keys, even if it doesn't involve CRLs or OCSP -
* One of the keys in this example belongs to Google. So our hypothetical attacker in this case needs both GMail's key and hillaryclinton.com's. And both cover the body of the message. Here's the signature from this email just so everyone is clear on what we're talking about:
:cc; :message-id:subject:to:cc;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=hillaryclinton.com; s=google;
h=from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date:message-id:subject:to
bh=EHIyNFKU1g6KhzxpAJQtxaW82g5+cTT3qlzIbUpGoRY=;
b=JgW85tkuhlDcythkyCrUMjPIAjHbUVPtgyqu+KpUR/kqQjE8+W23zacIh0DtVTqUGD
mzaviTrNmI8Ds2aUlzEFjxhJHtgKT4zbRiqDZS7fgba8ifMKCyDgApGNfenmQz+81+hN
2OHb/pLmmop+lIeM8ELXHhhr0m/Sd4c/3BOy8=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date
bh=EHIyNFKU1g6KhzxpAJQtxaW82g5+cTT3qlzIbUpGoRY=;
b=dEYKdN2vH085sl/02zUgJ1Lr66LV8lRV9Lrqx9SIpfiF1bOLLbIr1Au6AAY5vwg1vS
klK/TvacKT0j8aYADGNWP6BtG5XZ+IME6ydojlufQ3jqksqLkycSJ2ahYhxw4LmCii8n
kja2EKzRFcKGPnfhYnfwBCmIk/D5FWN6+yvpAYSmmZlxsR4b7mTJ8r/NmB7dKRIHeq8b
It is their job to find good information, and make it easy to find. I agree with your post too, that they shouldn't censor or correct. So I agree with both sides.
Tough decision.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Trump will follow Hannity's advice - ban the MSM from the White House. citation for all you assholes http://trumpinthenews.com/id/16443811016
Then we will get absolutely no news from the White House as only the echo chamber and the "slow thinkers" will be allowed to get press releases.
A lot of small news sites use Google Adsense because the connections are small to non-existent. The resources to negotiate deals directly is virtually non-existent which is why some simply throw these ads on in the first place. Another reason is that it is a pretty good way to ensure journalistic independence. You aren't beholden necessarily to your advertisers in the same way some traditional news organizations (i.e. TV broadcasting) are beholden to theirs. These policies need to be very carefully weighed and not rushed through. A lot more could be at stake than blacklisting clickbait sites and alt-right "news" sites that post the most ludicrous conspiracy theories as facts.
One reason I would personally worry about such a policy is who plays the role of executioner? How does Google determine a site is real or fake? Is there independent reporting involved? If so, what's to stop someone from maliciously reporting a competing site as a fake news site to cut off their funding?
On the flip side, this kind of policy also has the potential of hurting Google. What's to stop sites, regardless if they are fairly or unfairly targeted crying foul and holding Google up on anti-trust allegations? Google does, in fact, hold a lot of power. If Google comes knocking with some kind of notice saying you've been cut off, what are the alternatives to Adsense? How many other ad distribution networks distribute ads with drive-by malware, etc.?
I personally can only see things getting messy even if Google has the best intentions in mind for everyone.
Daily read for tech news: Freezenet.ca
A) CNN didn't say anything about people with clearances, instead they divided the world into two groups, the media (where it's okay) and the rest, where it's not okay.
B) That part is explicitly covered in the Popehat article which I linked, anyhow.
C) Wikileaks publishes all verifiable and true material leaked to it and goes for maximum impact, but they're not a hacking group, they can only operate if they have leaks.
For most leaks, you can simply go to ABC / CBS / NBC and avoid playing spy. Wikileaks was needed here, because the media themselves are complicit in many of the things in the Podesta dump. I mean, we have emails like this one showing them going behind their own lawyers' backs to send donors to the Washington Post's party, after being forbidden to put it on the price sheet. That really looks like a campaign donation of some kind, and their own lawyers explicitly forbade it. This is just one of many, many, many such examples. With the media doing things behind everyone's back, how can we be expected to just shut up and trust them, as CNN tried to encourage?
A campus full of them? At home click work? How many SJW are going to get jobs making the news safe again?
Why cant the big search engines just search? Let the user work it out or find a great site, blog or portal they never would have. Do what made a search engine great, find news, search everything.
Sooner or later users are going create a nice bookmark list of safe spaces. Thats great for them, the rest of us can enjoy a real working search engine. Let the search sites go back to searching, not filtering or censoring or funding staff to making the web a huge safe space..
Less funding from creepy dictators, theocracies, foundations and monarchies for safe SJW projects and just make a good search engine again.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
That Was The Week That Was (UK)
That Was The Week That Was (US)
The Daily Show with *
The Onion
Fox News
As long as we all can see the difference between satirical news coverage
(which tends to bend the facts a bit (left/right it doesn't matter)) for the laugh
and bs stories passed off as "hard news". We can't as a platform. We all just
gotta pay more attention.
See subject: Says it all - & don't send some sockpuppet chump - have "Rabbi Brin" come in so I can bust him flat! Puh-leese... @ this point?
* LMAO - & so is the PLANET, whimps... Hahahaha!
APK
P.S.=> Come on, lol - I know you're spineless, EVERYONE does, but please - don't make it THIS easy, lol... apk
Time for snopes to go back to debunking ghost stories.
It's not censorship to refuse to do business with someone if you don't agree with what what they say. It's funny how the same people who complain about things like companies being told they can't refuse service to homosexuals are the same kind of people then arguing that other people should have to deal with material they disagree with.
In short it isn't censorship for Google to refuse to do business with people peddling fake news. They can still peddle the news freely they just won't be able to avail themselves of Google's ad service. Am I little uncomfortable with the idea that a couple of organisations could become overly influential in deciding 'truth' and thus what most people see when they stay in their walled gardens? Yes, but is isn't censorship.
But there's no way for them NOT to do that. Ad-revenue follows the amount of views, which means if they do nothing they're essentially taking a stance of 'we'll facilitate the spread of any type of mis-information as long as it makes us money". So they're already doing it now, they're just slightly changing their parameters. It's their product and platform, they have no obligation whatsoever to spread lies to make money if they don't want to.
And why not? It's a search engine, the point of which is to provide people accurate information. If some trolls/hackers/political shills/whatever try to skew the search results so that upon googling thing X, instead a completely unrelated/false article Y comes up, that means their product is not operating as intended and they should correct it.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
What about Xenographic and his troup of astroturfers, go look at his comment history a fucking liar and traitor to America.... or a hard worker for Putin.
Or go look at the video he just quoted, where he says nothing about Wikileaks, and nothing about reading, and says its illegal to possess the emails.
You can't even tell the truth once can you Mr political astrotufing. Even when you're selling out your country.
Dude, get over it.
The "Look! RUSSIAN!!!! squirrel!!!!! It's SOOOO RUSSIAN!!!!" distraction FAILED.
Crooked Liar Hillary! LOST.
What are Crooked Liar Hillary!'s positions on using a RUSSIAN!!!! squirrel gambit, anyway? Could you tell us both her public and private positions?
Oh man, Slashdot is screwed ;)
Dear Mark Zuckerberg,
I'm writing to you with a concern of critical national importance. I hope that you will read what I've written and consider it carefully. I believe that Facebook has a moral duty to act.
I've spent the last 18 months or so participating in our political process on Facebook. I've joined Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump groups. I've attempted to argue my position with my neighbors and fellow citizens, trying to explain to them why I think Donald Trump's proposals, policies, and distortion of truth are bad for the country. But that's not what I'm writing to you about today.
I'm writing to share the depravity I witnessed and participated in – a torrent of personal attacks, of name-calling, of ad hominem, of attacking the individual instead of the argument. I was called a "fag", a "pussy" and a "libtard". I watched people who shared my position call others "baggers", "stupid fucks", "bigots", "inbred", and "fuckwits". I did it. I am ashamed. These insults don't demean a position, or idea, or way of thinking. Those can easily be discarded by people. They can be shed. They're not an identity, no matter how much identity politics wants us to believe that. I participated in it. I am culpable. You are culpable. We are culpable.
I'll refrain from discussing James Comey's misconduct or RNC obstruction. That's all been well documented. Hillary Clinton called 25% of the country "a basket of deplorables". Not their positions, not their conduct, not their statements – them. That has an impact. It causes social pain. This is a well-documented thing in human health. It exists.
Trevor Noah of the Daily Show, America's least-appreciated successor to Jon Stewart, made a critically important point in my opinion: the basket is actually the most offensive part of this. It conjures images of a portion of the nation about to be thrown away economically, a portion that has been or will be left behind, a portion of the country that – true or not – fears they have no place in human progress. That is toxic. It cannot stand in a free and open society.
I watched my fellow citizens literally hunt down pictures of peoples' children, photoshop text on to them (sorry Adobe), and use them as political ammunition in blind rage. I've watched people use Facebook's comically understaffed and unsophisticated reporting system as a means of retaliation, to get accounts pulled, to remove peoples' ability to participate at all instead of attempt to address their arguments. This is sick. This is depravity. This cannot stand.
Facebook must add tools for fact-checking positions. It must add tools to redirect people away from personal attacks, from tracking down peoples' employers, from mining through the personal lives of others in retaliation for expressing a dissenting opinion, no matter how misguided. It must stop the spread of fake news from Veles, Macedonia designed to channel our collective outrage at things that aren't even true into Google AdSense payments. It needs to stop placing news from domains like USANEWSPOLITIC24.COM on equal visual footing with the New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Oregonian. Facebook owes it to the world, it owes it to the country, and it owes it to its shareholders, who would like to see this grand experiment in social participation actually survive long term.
Mark, you have a duty to act. Your silence is disconcerting. Please. America can learn a powerful lesson from this tragedy of an election. The whole world is watching.
Please publish this letter anonymously. Please withhold and protect my identity for a minimum of one year. I genuinely fear reprisal and retaliation. I fear for my country and I fear for my life.
https://github.com/livefreeord...
While politics are a part of the tech landscape, Slashdot isn't supposed to be a politics website. Politics should augment the tech discussion, not the other way around.
The Left is logically challenged. In their minds, anything that is pro-Clinton is progressive. Anything pro-Trump is racist and sexist.
The absurdity of this position was taken to an extreme when the majority of white women voted for Trump in the election, at which point the majority of white women were accused of being .... wait for it... "sexist".
Yes, the majority of white women are apparently sexist according to the angry left. Why? Because they didn't vote for Clinton.
When pressed for a reason how it could possibly be true that a majority of white women were sexist, the kooks on the left came back with this gem:
The majority of white women were essentially *forced* to vote for Clinton because: Men. These women were unable to think for themselves because of a form of Stockholm syndrome called "Internalized Misogyny".
No really. It's true: http://www.advocate.com/commen...
This is the kind of batsh*t crazy thinking that comes out of the Left these days.
or a hard worker for Putin
Really? We're scared of Russia now? The Cold War ended because the Russian economy completely collapsed and still hasn't recovered to anything like the previous levels. Their GDP is under a tenth that of the USA or EU and has been declining steadily for years. Their GDP is slightly above that of Spain and well below that of Italy (two of the 'failing' economies in the EU, which are both a fraction of the size of Russia).
Mexico has an economy that is only about 20% smaller than that of Russia. Should we now be afraid of them? After all, they're a lot closer to the USA
China is at number 2 (3 if you count the EU as a single entity, even if you remove the UK), so they'd make a much more credible threat, but they aren't being touted as one because no one wants to offend a country with an economy that big.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You guys are xenophobic idiots. Go suck Donald's duck.
Aaaah, the voice of the tolerant left.
Where "mostly peaceful" means "yeah, it's actually violent".
How is Mexican a race? In terms of genetically heritable appearance, Mexicans vary from light-skinned Caucasians indistinguishable from European Spaniards to dark-skinned Mestizos to those more similar to indigenous peoples of North America.
I see a huge variety here in Minnesota with no dominant characteristic beyond shorter than most of the Scandahoovians, a height difference I'd ascribe to something between genetics and poor neo/postnatal nutrition.
Trump's broad brush might best be described as xenophobic if you had to pick a negative label for his description, but racist doesn't stick because Mexican isn't a race.
For me, the bottom line is there really isn't any acceptable level of criminal behavior by undocumented immigrants, and preventing undocumented immigration as much as possible also eliminates the crimes they commit.
It would have to apply to breitbart first. Fox second.
So does this include or exclude Fox?
And why not?
Because it will disproportionately affect the right.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
See subject & what you downmodded https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... & then I'll ask WHY "Open SORES" addons use 20-40x more memory YET addons do 17++ times less vs. hosts files?
(You know - the posts I put up vs. "AlmostALLAdsBlocked" &/or UBlock have everything I'm talking about now in them - or, must I post them AGAIN to "refresh your memory"? LOL!)
APK
P.S.=> Oh, yea - when a DNS, even Google DNS, gets redirect poisoned, your Open SORES addons don't help - but hosts do, bypassing DNS & all its security faults (as well as "going down & out" faults too)... apk
So CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS won't be able to use google ads now?
Turns out the far left is just as scary, if not more than, the far right. At this moment in history we are watching the establishment figure out how to control the narrative in the 'New Media'. The establishment obviously thought that paid internet trolls and shill 'news' channels would be enough but they were just proven very wrong by what was essentially information gorilla warfare. Now the establishment is going back to the basics of 'attacking the supply lines' in the war for the minds of America. Controlling the narrative is everything and that's why speaking truth to power is so disrupting.
"What we don't know keeps the contracts alive and movin"
"They don't gotta burn the books, they just remove 'em"
As there's pretty much no such thing as *real* news.
Requiem for the American Dream
No, rules only apply to those without the power to evade them.
Requiem for the American Dream
I'm sure Google will try to stomp on conservative voices and you'll still see a flood of liberal sites just like that (most mainstream media is turning into tabloid quality, so there are few real news sites left). This is a blatant attempt at censorship because they feel they are losing political power.
All major MSM outlets have told fake news stories. Does this mean we won't be having to read the latest "$X did $Y in $Z"? Will we lose the national treasure that is TMZ? Let's just ditch all 'news' sites.
This will turn into censorship. According to Wikileaks, Eric Schmidt (therefore Google) is very tight with the Democratic party. This will go beyond just punishing "fake news" - it will change the news. Google and the Dems would have gladly labeled Wikileaks as "fake news" this election. Policing the information of the internet is impossible anyway.
They will cross reference the publishers with the Tea Party donor lists that the IRS "leaked".
Those matches will be prohibited from making money.
Yeah, I read from this more that "More things are being put in place to control the media YOU see". CNN/MSNBC/everywhere, the wikileaks showed were colluding with the Clinton campaign. So the solution is... more control of what media you get to see? Hmm...
Waiting for an amusing sig.
I haven't seen such a partisan hackjob masquerading as a journalist like this in a very long time.
Close the barn door after the horse leaves.
Of course it will apply to CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post. If it didn't then it would just be more liberal bullshit.
Fox and other conservative "MSM" don't run fake news so you're fine. Go back to your bubbles everyone and shut up.
I listen to Fox News Radio and read the New York Times every day. Bunch of children here, I swear.
So many sites have ads that look like news items or download links.
Let's do something about those, too!
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
So.. does this include things like Huffington Post and Breitbart?
If not, then I'm not sure Google isn't just trolling us. It's all fake.
The whole point of a search engine is to try to find information. Wrong information greatly reduces the value of the search product. If Google only returned fake news it would be the equivalent of Snopes. And Google's search revenue is much higher than Snopes' is, that's for sure. If Google places ads on fake news sites, they create an internal conflict. Rather than have to deal with that, they've decided that the revenue from fake news sites isn't worth the cost of the internal misalignment and have dropped it. No idea why this is noteworthy at all. There are fake news sites that are trying to make money off of ads. Those are mostly yawners. And there are those with a political agenda. This will probably impact the former but not the latter.
Technically if you have a clearance it might be illegal to read wikileaks depending on the link used, since that would technically be facilitating the distribution of classified material. Make no mistake about it. Posting something classified on wikileaks does not remotely make it unclassified.
Correct that publicly publishing classified material, whether on Wikileaks, a newspaper, or on Slashdot, does not declassify the material. It's not illegal to read such material whether or not you hold a security clearance; however, if you do hold a clearance and you suspect that classified material has been made public, you are obliged by law to report it to the appropriate authority (usually that would be your Facility Security Offficer).
Well, at last check, China hasn't effectively annexed large portions of any nearby countries and they aren't flying air support for a dictator dropping bombs on his political opponents. And China does not appear to be actively trying to influence US elections with information warfare. If you aren't worried about recent Russian actions outside their borders then you are ignoring reality to rationalize something. It is okay to agree with a party or candidate on some issues and not others.
Google could have done the right thing and kept the alt-right republitards under control.
But their real god is money, and it took a disastrous election outcome and an upcoming Dark Ages to spur them into action.
I love technology but I hate the mindset of the big players in tech, because they are greedy, selfish, and they put the almighty dollar ahead of everything else.
Thanks for nothing, Google. Thanks for fucking up this election.
I bet if you call us racists a few (thousand) more times we'll finally come around to your way of thinking. It's bound to work eventually.
What, you meant you'll actually start to think???
> What about CNN, that was lying about it being illegal to read Wikileaks
Ugh. black and white thinking for the fail.
If perfection is a requirement then all sources are 100% failures. You will always be able to find examples of fuck-ups, no matter how rigorous an organization's journalistic standards are.
The very reason popehat bothered to refute that CNN host's bullshit is because CNN is held to a higher standard. If popehat went around debunking the river of straight-up lies from the fake-news sites then they would be working 500-hour weeks just on that.
Degree matters. CNN, et al are orders of magnitude better quality than the fake news sites google and facebook are refusing to do business with.
Policy? Google, here's effective REALITY APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?...
* It shuts your easily abused advertisting RIGHT the "f" down (it infects users + slows them).
(... & you know it - TRY validly & technically to prove me wrong? You'll fail, you always do, & I'll utterly CRUSH your best easily (& you KNOW that too, lol) - chumps!)
APK
P.S.=> To Barb Hudson: "The World Series of Poker has a million bucks on it. Does it have MY name on it? I dunno - but, I'm gonna find out!" ... apk
I wonder if Google will be smart enough to distinguish parody and satire sites vs. ones that exist to libel and slander political foes. It will be a lot less fun to do my website if I have to beat it over people's heads with THIS IS A JOKE on every story I write.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Fake articles seems to be a new "approach" in Internet media that is becoming increasingly common. A title that is either favorable or unfavorable to a particular party with an article that says whose contents are the exact opposite with facts that are based on celebrity quotes or opinions rather than facts. This approach may have been used during the political process in 2016, but I have seen this style of writing growing. It seems to be turning Internet media into a supermarket tabloid across the board. I came across very few articles or videos online for Trump during the campaign. But there were a TON of them for Clinton. Maybe I fit the Clinton demographic rather than the Trump one, I don't know. The Youtube videos were particular frustrating because they would show up every two or three minutes and I couldn't skip any of them even though I had watched them like 100 times (30 second ads!). I was in high school and college in the 90s when Bill Clinton was in office. So I remember the Clinton presidency well. I didn't come across any Clinton ads that were complete fabrications, but quite a few were what I would call "factish". They would present something she did but omit some important details which were very misleading. This only made them more annoying to watch. I hope that both parties have learned their lesson and will stop deciding who is going to win the primary BEFORE people vote. They have picked John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton and all three have lost their bids. You can spend $1 billon dollars running Youtube ads that I can't skip all you want, but in the I am going to vote for who I think is the best candidate, period.
That's stupid. Why don't you look around Breitbart a little before you fall into that trap. It may be a partisan news site, but it is clearly not anti-Semitic.
Really? We're scared of Russia now?
Well I, for one, certainly don't want to go to war with them, which is clearly what Hillary was poised to do. Probably just go get at Snowden if nothing else. Go watch the 2nd debate again. All those times she pivoted to talking about what to do about Russia or how evil Putin is were mostly responses to questions that were completely unrelated to foreign policy.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
The courts have already decided that so called news programs consist mostly of opinion-tainment anyways how will one tell the fake news from the junk news ? I guess google white as the driven profit motive will decide what is valid and what is not ?
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Unless Hillary Clinton is somewhere between you and the POTUS on the org chart; then you just say "Not again" and moveon.
The popup fake news sites tracked back to a PR firm being hired by Hillary - will those types of sites be blocked as well?
Like CNN?
Mexico has an economy that is only about 20% smaller than that of Russia. Should we now be afraid of them? After all, they're a lot closer to the USA
Well, Russia has around 7,300 nuclear warheads and is led by an ex-KGB guy who thinks that it's his duty to return Russia to the glory days of superpower status, at the expense of the US. I'm having a hard time figuring out how many nuclear warheads Mexico has, but I'm sure there's a comparison there somewhere.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I think it's cruel and unreasonable to cut off revenue streams for entrepreneurial teens in Macedonia who make their living out of duping the alt-right bozos in the USA. I mean, they can write more competitive nonsense to appeal to racists and bigots where the alt-right press in the USA has quite obviously failed. Let's ship their "journalism" overseas where they can do a better job. Macedonia's economy will suffer as a result of this protectionist, anti-bigotry censorship.
> Well, Russia has around 7,300 nuclear warheads and is led by an ex-KGB guy who thinks that it's his duty to return Russia to the glory days of superpower status
That sounds like a pretty good reason not to go picking fights with them to me, but what do I know?
"Being wrong" about something is not lying.
And even if it were, "lying" is still not the same as "misrepresent[ing], misstat[ing], or conceal[ing] information about the publisher, the publisher's content, or the primary purpose of the web property."
Why is everyone pretending this is such a big subjective clusterfuck? What Google is talking about is no more than authenticating the site. Authentication is a good thing, right?
So if you want to run a fake news site from Macedonia, you can still absolutely do that. You can call it 'USConservativeToday.com' and put GOP logos and WND press releases all over it and not mention that it's run by some Macedonian teenager looking for free money. Or, you can have Google ads on it - but only if you do 'fess up about who owns it and what its editorial rules are.
How is this even a controversial thing, much less a bad one?
So, when Bannon took his kid out of a school because he “didn’t want the girls going to school with Jews" and wrote that in an email to his ex-wife, that wasn't anti-Semitic? And no, it's not "he said - she said" when you write it in an email.
Anyway, for your reading enjoyment, here is a list of some Breitbart headlines that Bannon signed off on:
You are welcome on my lawn.
It most certainly is Google's job to de-rank low-quality sites, outright fabrications, spam, abuse, and other detritus, and up-rank quality stuff.
Or are you one of those conservatives that thinks their uneducated and untrue gut feeling is just as valid as a whole field of practiced experts who study the subject professionally?
Andrew Breitbart was Jewish and he hired Bannon. Joel Pollak the senior editor is Jewish. Ben Shapiro is Jewish. David Horowitz wrote that article with the headline and he is Jewish. If you happen to look at articles that mention Israel you will see they are all friendly. Larry Solov is Jewish. In fact I think Breitbart (a Jewish name) probably employs more Jewish staff as a percentage than most national outlets. One of it's founding principles was to portray Israel in a positive light that is so lacking in much of society. You can call Breitbart lots of things, some of them warranted. But calling it anti-semitic just shows that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that you have no actual facts to base your opinion on.
Andrew Breitbart wasn't an anti-Semite. He was a fool, out of his depth, and he desperately wanted the support of anti-Semites.
Bannon is an anti-Semite. And a bigot. And a misogynist. See my evidence elsewhere in this thread.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Bannon is an anti-Semite.
You really have nothing that supports this. Other than the claims of an ex-wife issued during divorce proceedings. Sorry. You lost this one. It's obvious that you're just regurgitating the narrative that you are hearing from your "trusted" media of preference.
The question is how evenly it will be applied as well as Google's ability to investigate every site on the web as to whether or not what they say is true. It seems more likely that certain disliked sites will simply end up blacklisted and they'll call it a day.
I wouldn't really care if TMZ and BuzzFeed shut down, but something tells me they're not the real targets.
See, that's where you're wrong. The emails of Bannon complaining about Jews are part of the court record. They were included during discovery.
Bannon is an anti-Semite, a bigot, and a punk. I posted more evidence elsewhere in the thread.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The corporation that got an official court decision that news doesn't have to be true...
does this include cnn?
Are they going to block all religious sites ?
Or once it's not "news" it can still be disseminated as fake stories ?
Religious documents are often inaccurate to the point of being complete fabrications. I think people deserve to be protected from sites carrying this sort of misinformation.