Slashdot Mirror


The US Government Funds A War On Online Fake News (bangordailynews.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the Washington Post: Congressional negotiators on Wednesday approved an initiative to track and combat foreign propaganda amid growing concerns that Russian efforts to spread "fake news" and disinformation threaten U.S. national security. The measure, part of the National Defense Authorization Act approved by a conference committee, calls on the State Department to lead government-wide efforts to identify propaganda and counter its effects. The authorization is for $160 million over two years...

The Senate Intelligence Committee, meanwhile, has approved language in the fiscal year 2017 intelligence authorization bill calling for new executive branch efforts to combat what it characterized as "active measures" by Russia to manipulate people and governments through front groups, covert broadcasting or "media manipulation." "There is definitely bipartisan concern about the Russian government engaging in covert influence activities of this nature," Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement. "If you read section 501 of this year's intelligence authorization bill, it directs the President to set up an interagency committee to 'counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence over peoples and governments.'"

Several senators on the intelligence committee also asked President Obama to declassify any information relating to the Russian government and the U.S. election.

360 comments

  1. Onwards to victory. by durrr · · Score: 5, Informative

    Let the US government fake news win!

    We called it propaganda for hundreds of years? Why change now? Is this some form of doublenextplusgoodspeak?

    1. Re:Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever, I'm just hear to listen to all of the russian trolls gripe about being deprived of their first amendment rights :P

      This article should hit a 500 comments in about an hour

    2. Re: Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Proved wrong once again. 45 minutes in, 29 comments. New Nostradamus?

    3. Re:Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeh, the US has been totally pwned by Russia, especially in the middle bit, Trump loving dumbfuckistan,

    4. Re:Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. The only threads that hit 500+ have to do with people losing their jobs due to H1-B or ageism.

    5. Re:Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were do you find your US government fake news these days? In the state department's website perhaps? Anyway, this fake news thing is just a delayed payback from the days of Radio Free Europe. The Soviet era generals are still bitter about it and as a result of this campaign are starting to realize that the freedom of speech is not something that can be given but a natural right. Putin will have no choice but to dismiss another batch of his generals soon.

    6. Re:Onwards to victory. by Jhon · · Score: 1

      "Let the US government fake news win!"

      War on drugs!
      War on poverty!

      Oh crap... we're hosed.

    7. Re:Onwards to victory. by guises · · Score: 1

      It's just more specific, there are other kinds of propaganda.

    8. Re: Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1. I am not pro-Russian
      2. I would describe myself as a Ron Paul (l)ibertarian
      3. The government needs a new boogie man since terrorism seems to be wearing thin as a justification for crapping on the constitution.
      4. Those damn Ruskie commie bastards look like a good target to fool the idiots.

    9. Re: Onwards to victory. by Type44Q · · Score: 2
    10. Re: Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. I already here it now. Everyone that disagrees with me is a Russian hacker spreading fake news.

      And in other news satire dies as an art form.

    11. Re:Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely fabricates news outlets, citing non-existent sources about non-existent people involved in non-existent events. That's what the Fake News they're talking about is.

      It's as different as night and day from old-fashioned "spin" or misleading reporting of REAL things.

    12. Re: Onwards to victory. by butchersong · · Score: 2

      You would think with the 100 billion a year we spend now on intelligence agencies and military intelligence that... this would already be covered.

    13. Re: Onwards to victory. by sheramil · · Score: 1

      3. The government needs a new boogie man since terrorism seems to be wearing thin as a justification for crapping on the constitution.

      I disagree. Terrorism makes good Bad Guys because they're generally threatening - like, guns in your face, blow you up threatening, not "you called me an edgelord on twitter" threatening - and anyone you don't like can be painted as a Terrorist, with the possible exception of people like the Dalai Lama, Brian Eno, Krillin, etc. Drawing astroturfers, spammers and shitposters as the new terrorists would be difficult because it's hard to track them down. If your shitposter turns out to be a python script hosted on a burner account in the .cx domain, who do you arrest? Guido van Rossum?

      also, most shitposters turn out to be fourteen year old American white males, and there's only so much threat mileage you can extract from that direction.

    14. Re:Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome the officially sanctioned fake news of the US Government (tm) as my primary source of fake news. May the best fake news source win!

    15. Re:Onwards to victory. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I went to the supermarket today. According to the National Enquirer, Hillary Clinton has already been indicted for a whole bunch of illegal things she did. It was on the front page.

      I'm still a little leery of jumping on the "OMG FAKE NEWS!!" bandwagon given there seems to be absolutely nothing new about the phenomenon. I'm inclined to blame a combination of an awful Democratic candidate (well, she was. And no, I don't think Bernie would have won either. Democrats had a dreadful choice at the primaries this year) and the seductive nature of Fascism, which has proven itself over and over again to be a message people respond to as long as they don't recognize it for what it is.

      The supermarket tabloids have been peddling this crap for decades. TV news, especially local news, also has its own version of "reality", frequently mixing syndicated spots of dubious accuracy with genuine news. (And this is ignoring justified, if over stated, criticism of mainstream serious print media, which is a different category of misleading content.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    16. Re: Onwards to victory. by sheramil · · Score: 2

      You would think with the 100 billion a year we spend now on intelligence agencies and military intelligence that... this would already be covered.

      perhaps you have misinterpreted their role. they aren't there to gather intelligence. they exist as an extended kind of sheltered workshop for people who are otherwise unemployable in the commercial sector. like unemployment, except they get paid a hell of a lot more and they have close to zero accountability.

      "Okay.. did you spy on North Korea in the past fortnight? Did you TRY to spy on North Korea in the past fortnight?"

    17. Re:Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I will answer:

      Because they will be doing some very interesting syntactical and legal gymnastics whereby they can accuse the russians of fake news but not:

        - Breitbart and other crazies.
        - Fox News and all the other MSM.
        - Their own press releases.
        - Government department press releases.
        - Most of what any politicians says.
        - Most of what any CEO or other O variant says.

      It will be very interesting indeed...or not...

    18. Re:Onwards to victory. by Humbubba · · Score: 2
      Edward Bernays renamed it "Public Relations", because "Propaganda" had too many negative implications.

      BTW, He's the guy who said manipulating public opinion was essential to democracy. He did work "influencing public opinion" for Woodrow Wilson during WWI.

    19. Re: Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, seriously... after all the failed wars, they want the War on Fake News next?

      Yeah I'm sure that will really work out well for them....

    20. Re: Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blow me fucktard

    21. Re: Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      senator wyden isn't interested in unsourced stories and fake authors-- very reliable anonymous investigators have made a list for him of the news sites that publish opinions so unamerican that they can only have come from Russia. sites like counterpunch and brietbart

    22. Re: Onwards to victory. by coteriescavenger · · Score: 1

      That's exactly his point. They can't make American journalists out to be boogie men, so they point at the Russians, and then go after American journalists.

    23. Re: Onwards to victory. by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      perhaps you have misinterpreted their role. they aren't there to gather intelligence.

      Oh, but they are and they do!

      It's simply that their job is to spy on and propagandize the US population for domestic political/ideological control.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    24. Re:Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would never read fake news after CNN warned me it was illegal. I'm smart enough to wait for their trusted and impartial journalists to process the information for me and present it in a form that won't land me in jail.

    25. Re:Onwards to victory. by slashrio · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I hear and see a lot of thing on RT about the USA that isn't covered by the MSM and I'm not sure that it's 'fake news'.
      If you want facts about a foreign country, watch your national TV. If you want facts about your own country, watch foreign TV.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    26. Re: Onwards to victory. by slashrio · · Score: 2

      I'd quickly save that wikipedia page if I were you, because it will soon be deleted, 'fake news' as it is...

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    27. Re: Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China claims DL is a terrorist. Ofc all chinese agrees with this.

    28. Re: Onwards to victory. by Archtech · · Score: 2

      And in other news satire dies as an art form.

      Sorry - I sympathize with your feelings, but the death of satire has already been announced. It was about 40 years ago when Tom Lehrer (someone well qualified to comment on the subject) remarked that

      "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel peace prize."

      https://www.theguardian.com/cu...

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    29. Re:Onwards to victory. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      I went to the supermarket today. According to the National Enquirer, Hillary Clinton has already been indicted for a whole bunch of illegal things she did. It was on the front page. I'm still a little leery of jumping on the "OMG FAKE NEWS!!"

      The difference is that now people take the national enquirer seriously. Or actually (since they don't), that ludicrous made up stuf was confined to places which few people took seriously. If you earnesrlt shared National Enquirer stories on face book most people from either side of the political divide would have taken the piss or at least looked askance. People also knew that news sources made mistakes---that's not new---and they've had retractions and corrections for a very long time now.

      Something changed recently however with the sheer amount of unadulterated lies that people seem to be prepared to pass around as fact. Perhaps because they're coming from more reputable sources than NE (no politician is affiliated with that after all), or because rather than endless streams of "omg babies on the titanic!!!1" (I saw that one!), the crap is now about topical stuff.

      The alternative reality stuff has always existed. Recently however, it's taken centre stage and started to displace actual reality to a remarkable degree.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    30. Re: Onwards to victory. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No that's just your paranoia and lack of understanding of basic English at work.

      Fake means fake as in not real.

      Fake does not mean "I personally don't like it", or "make my party look bad", or "challenges beliefs I hold" or any of those things.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    31. Re:Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can do that by watching the (.AU) ABC or the (.UK) BBC, getting it in English from native speakers, and sparing yourself all the propaganda.

    32. Re:Onwards to victory. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You are not in the least bit clever.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    33. Re:Onwards to victory. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      As explained in fairly disturbing detail by Adam Curtis in The Century of the Self .

      Grab a torrent or hit Vimeo and watch it if you've not done so already.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    34. Re:Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that Podesta worked with CNN to manipulate poll numbers to make Hillary look like she was more popular than she really was. CNN not only helped, but knowingly published the false data as news. We don't have to look to the other side of the world for the worst cases of false news.

    35. Re:Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only propaganda when the other guys do it. But I suspect that US media outlets and politicians are a little afraid to resort to the word "propaganda", because voters might use the word "hypocrites" to describe them. Last time I checked, the first amendment does not limit the speech of foreigners in any way, much less Americans. But if a democratically elected government believes that it has a legitimate right to use the treasury to tell taxpayers what they should think and believe, that rubs me raw.

    36. Re: Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 clarity

    37. Re:Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the propaganda stays. Its just the "fake" news that goes away. Fake is not necessarily untrue. Its just from a unaccredited source. A coin or bill can be fake even though its 100% the same as a "real" one, its just not minted by an approved source. This is the reason its called "fake" news and not lies. They want to shut some sources up. (and its not just in the US they are doing this, its the same in Europe too)

    38. Re: Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, let's remember to remind Trump of these measures after Jan 20th so the money can be diverted to better uses.

    39. Re: Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet we all know what the poster is referencing. Wikileaks, one of the few places left that does serious journalism, unlike CNN's unadulterated falsehoods.

    40. Re: Onwards to victory. by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the Governments.

      I don't see how this could be abused at all.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    41. Re:Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We called it propaganda for hundreds of years? Why change now? Is this some form of doublenextplusgoodspeak?

      Yep sure is!!!

      The sheep of this country didn't buy the propaganda they were fed and when else where for news and left the government/media feeding troff. So in order the get the sheep back other news sources are call "fake" when the truth is what we are fed from the media is in REAL TRUTH PROPAGANDA.

      Just remember it all doubleplus good! and watch the news citizen.

      .

    42. Re: Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wars failed by design. If the US wanted to win the wars the politicians would give the military a free hand and kept the politically defined ROI's to themselves. The ROI's have become an integral part of the terrorist groups strategies. They know hiding amongst a large group of citizens makes them safe. They basically have defined safe zones where they can regroup and then run out to commit another atrocity and then scampering back to the children's nursery. The US military could kill everyone until there was no one left to start a counter insurgency once the guns went silent. Collateral damage is unfortunate but so is war. If you are not willing to accept collateral damage and your opponent knows that then you can never win. The conflict will just continue without end and ultimately guarantee the body count far exceeds any collateral damage.
      If the world spanning bleeding hearts and their media sympathizers would just be consistent in their condemnations and criticisms the wars might have already reached closure. Instead no matter what heinous act a group of psychopaths (ie terrorists) commit the first sentence after the where and when of the attack starts explaining how it is all the Americans fault. This pattern of new coverage and social commentary emboldens the terrorist groups. The terrorist groups are not neophytes when it comes to formulating propaganda aimed at their supporters using the enemies own words. This particular editorial line and those who support it are going to get a chance to see what happens when the US finishes abandoning the ME. Russia can carpet bomb the heart of a city without any regard to who they are killing and the "war" protesters are silent and even evoke congratulatory praises on Russia for their military prowess and humanitarian based initiatives. But you have to admire the Russian policy of destroying every hospital they can locate which seems to be achieving some fine results. Not exactly sure what the results will be but without a doubt we will see results.
      And the people who think the US military is just not capable of winning a war have not seen what the US military is capable of doing without one hand tied behind their backs. This false perception has allowed countries like Iran and NK to actually think they could survive a true military confrontation with the US. Iran is particularly delusional to gauging the true capabilities of an unleashed US military.

    43. Re:Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let the US government fake news win!

      We called it propaganda for hundreds of years? Why change now? Is this some form of doublenextplusgoodspeak?

      At least they aren't calling it the Ministry of Truth.

    44. Re: Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fake does not mean "I personally don't like it", or "make my party look bad", or "challenges beliefs I hold" or any of those things.

      You are speaking from a bottom-up human perspective...to the "governments" that is exactly what "fake" means. Whatever they say it means.

      The goal of "governments" of this nature is to maintain power...this requires ever-shifting control of dialogue and language.

      So, you may be "right" from a human perspective, but you are not thinking like a Machaveilli.

      To The Prince, "fake" literally does mean "anything that threatens my power" ... of course, they can't TELL people that. But that is what it literally means.

    45. Re: Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RT has an obvious bias on certain topics but no bias on other topics. It is sometimes a little confusing to watch in that regard. I do find it interesting from time to time, but ultimately it is made by people whose worldview is so different that they often don't understand American values or why Americans do certain things.

      If you want honest news reporting on the USA, news from Australia, Canada, or the UK is far closer to a factual and neutral reporting than RT.

    46. Re: Onwards to victory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lolwut?

    47. Re:Onwards to victory. by Humbubba · · Score: 1

      Muchas gracias, amigo! There now.

    48. Re: Onwards to victory. by slashrio · · Score: 1

      For me the value in RT is that they give some news about the USA that the USA media do not give.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    49. Re: Onwards to victory. by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I don't agree with your last statement.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    50. Re:Onwards to victory. by slashrio · · Score: 1

      I think it would be a bit naive to get objective Western news from Western MSM news channels.
      Yes, like ABC, BBC also.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  2. Use high quality sources by fred911 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I use a high quality source for my news. TheOnion.com is America's finest news source (it says so in Google) and provides me with everything I need to know about news. If everyone would use high quality news sources, we would all know the truth like I do.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:Use high quality sources by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      The best comedy requires a grounding in truth to be effective. A lot of the articles on the Onion are funny because we recognize and can relate to their topics. Remind you of anyone you know? Yeah... me too.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Use high quality sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, almost every story on the Onion will become reality within 5 years.

    3. Re:Use high quality sources by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Quite frankly if there's not a Slashdot article about it, it didn't happen. Sometime in our near future I will be sitting in a demolished building with radioactive ash raining down on me and I'll read a Slashdot article saying Trump has launched a nuclear strike, get to your bunker.

      The first post will be: "This happened 4 days ago, Slashdot is slow."
      My post as I'm dying on my keyboard will be: "ORLY? This is just another anti trump conspiracy."

    4. Re:Use high quality sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use wikipedia for news, and snopes to check it out

  3. treating the symptoms by cosm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Look. If you think your populace is too stupid to discern between a clickbait tabloid and real news (whatever the fuck that is these days), going after the messengers will only aggravate the issue. Either through malice or stupidity, a government truthiness division will just make people more likely to validate their biases towards those that are government approved. This is just a ploy for votes/money anyways. The CIA has long participated with the media in terms of combating propaganda and injecting the party line into the zeitgeist.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:treating the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      American government de-funds schools in favor of war in the middle east.
      American government is surprised large numbers of their citizens are gullible fools.

    2. Re:treating the symptoms by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're wrong about that. People are dumb and they believe anything they see on Facebook. So get it off Facebook and problem solved.

    3. Re:treating the symptoms by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's yet another government waste of money. Fake news is effective because all the major news outlets have lost their credibility by not even trying to hide their bias. I know that CNN usually doesn't tell outright lies though, even if sometimes they report things with a certain slant or ignore some stories. I know that 99 percent of what I see on twitter is bogus. Still, the fact that the MSM has become so obviously pro left has pretty much enabled all these crazy stories. Now, having the government chime in is only going to make people double-down on the fake stuff. If there is any organization less trusted than the media it's the government.

    4. Re:treating the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      With the large media companies unable to effectively control the election and give Hillary the presidency its time for an overhaul. These 5 or so companies should be the ones controlling the election, not these independents.

    5. Re:treating the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      wow that just ignoring every fact on the planet there. How about twitter is a feed, pick one, and cnn has lied about everything for the last 15 years. Lets start with WMD and Hillary ahead by 30 points poll. Yea, then anything else its said or printed has been a lie. Including I'll move if trump wins. WTH are you smoking. Alt-Right news is the only news even close, and this bill is trying to vilify any honest reporting period. Pizza Gate has all these Pols scared, they are all going to look at prison time soon.

    6. Re:treating the symptoms by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      The US government already had it war on news, Ronny Raygun killed it along with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., bullshit won and it is still winning in the US at least on main stream media. Its like they can not accept that their bullshit always rots away when exposed to the truth, they just keep it going, anyhow with taxpayer dollars, targeting the majority with more propaganda. The workers are shit, the rich are gods, shut up and obey, why don't they just brand that on all poor children's foreheads the first day they enter school. Your funny bit of propaganda, oh yeah, main stream media all owned by right wing corporations is pro left, what a load.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:treating the symptoms by rholtzjr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is not about being too stupid or not. This is an attempt to only validate news sources that certain parties want them to listen to as a valid new source. In other words a step towards government sponsored censorship. Of course they want to push this through as quickly as possible to ensure this is enacted in time for the 2020 election. They want to ensure that there is no interference in their next election (as they believe there was, because all those smart, qualified people who predicted the outcome were WAY off target).

    8. Re:treating the symptoms by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      Look. If you think your populace is too stupid to discern between a clickbait tabloid and real news...

      ... it is.

    9. Re:treating the symptoms by epyT-R · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's the school system that created all this snowflake syndrome we have now. You think that shit starts in college? I have news for you.

    10. Re:treating the symptoms by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's yet another government waste of money. Fake news is effective because all the major news outlets have lost their credibility by not even trying to hide their bias. I know that CNN usually doesn't tell outright lies though, even if sometimes they report things with a certain slant or ignore some stories. I know that 99 percent of what I see on twitter is bogus. Still, the fact that the MSM has become so obviously pro left has pretty much enabled all these crazy stories. Now, having the government chime in is only going to make people double-down on the fake stuff. If there is any organization less trusted than the media it's the government.

      Remember all those years where Sarah Palin was the effective leader of the GOP base? Remember the absolute gong show of the 2012 GOP Presidential Primary with the parade of ridiculous not-Romneys?

      2016 isn't the first time the GOP has gone off the deep-end, if media coverage seems skewed it's because it's difficult to give an intellectually honest defence of the US right when it regularly rallies around conspiracy theories.

      If anything the media helped Trump with constant coverage of Clinton's emails and controversies around her foundation, while paying no attention to the actual policies being discussed.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    11. Re:treating the symptoms by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Polls are just polls. They call people and ask them questions. Just because someone likes one candidate over another doesn't mean they'll get off their ass and go vote. Lots of people that voted for Obama the last two elections didn't feel like making the effort for Hilliary. The polls probably made them feel it wasn't necessary in some cases and in other ones they just didn't like her enough to make an effort. Most of that stuff on twitter is bogus and you know it unless you're an idiot.

    12. Re:treating the symptoms by guises · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Great. So the parent points out that we're defunding education in favor of war, and thus maybe we shouldn't be surprised at how easily our people are mislead, and your response is, "Yeah, but educated people are also more annoying. So that's fine."

    13. Re:treating the symptoms by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Look. If you think your populace is too stupid to discern between a clickbait tabloid and real news (whatever the fuck that is these days), going after the messengers will only aggravate the issue.

      This is windfall of the long-term, intentional program of the right to destroy competent US primary (secular) education. An ignorant populace is an easily deluded and manipulated populace.

      This priority is right up there with dog-whistling intolerance and minority voter disenfranchisement.

    14. Re:treating the symptoms by epyT-R · · Score: 0

      No, that's not what I said at all.

    15. Re:treating the symptoms by guises · · Score: 2

      This is a little bit of an aside, but the whole "liberal main stream media" thing basically started with Spiro Agnew - he calling them "nattering nabobs of negativism" and that hostile relationship has continued ever since. At the time, or maybe a little afterwards, this might have been true. The Nixon administration was corrupt as shit after all, and maybe the media really was out to get them because, again, they were corrupt as shit.

      Of course, nowadays the right has the largest news network (Fox), the largest newspaper (The Wall Streel Journal), and completely dominates talk radio. The right-wing candidate, Trump, also got billions of dollars in free publicity in the last election. By this point though, it has proven to be very effective to play the victim when it comes to the media, so the line about "the main stream media" will continue until it becomes ineffective as a campaign tool.

    16. Re:treating the symptoms by Mr307 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its another thin edge of the wedge event.

      1. 'Something must be done to protect the people.'
      2. The something includes a framework that restricts a right we all have and want, but 'it will only be used for this 1 purpose we promise'.
      3. Based on the promises of every administration ever the protection is passed/enabled.
      4. 28937438 other uses for the framework are found and since someone else thinks we need more protection our rights are reduced some more.
      5. We dont have that right anymore (for our own protection of course).

      Yes I appreciate that breakdown is somewhat hyperbolic, but if you apply that view to almost anything done 'for our protection because someone else said we needed it' then I think in general its true.

    17. Re:treating the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The leader? No, that was McCain, though he picked a gimmick when he shouldn't have. That doesn't impress anyone on the left, they've written people like Milo off as not really gay, for example, so they have no issues with othering anyone who doesn't toe the line.

      There are certainly plenty of conspiracy theories out there, but they're mostly the left who can't figure out any reason for their loss that doesn't say that everyone who isn't them is stupid, never mind a significant fraction of those "stupid people" like yours truly voted for Obama one year and Trump this.

    18. Re:treating the symptoms by rholtzjr · · Score: 2

      Honestly , I do not see this going anywhere. This is just part of a wish list to control the information to the masses.

    19. Re:treating the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's yet another government waste of money. Fake news is effective because all the major news outlets have lost their credibility by not even trying to hide their bias. I know that CNN usually doesn't tell outright lies though, even if sometimes they report things with a certain slant or ignore some stories. I know that 99 percent of what I see on twitter is bogus. Still, the fact that the MSM has become so obviously pro left has pretty much enabled all these crazy stories. Now, having the government chime in is only going to make people double-down on the fake stuff. If there is any organization less trusted than the media it's the government.

      Remember all those years where Sarah Palin was the effective leader of the GOP base? Remember the absolute gong show of the 2012 GOP Presidential Primary with the parade of ridiculous not-Romneys?

      2016 isn't the first time the GOP has gone off the deep-end, if media coverage seems skewed it's because it's difficult to give an intellectually honest defence of the US right when it regularly rallies around conspiracy theories.

      If anything the media helped Trump with constant coverage of Clinton's emails and controversies around her foundation, while paying no attention to the actual policies being discussed.

      Hillary! having a vagina is not a policy.

    20. Re:treating the symptoms by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's the school system that created all this snowflake syndrome we have now.

      Let's see who the snowflakes are. In the past week or so, Trump supporters have been triggered by:

      1. A Broadway play.
      2. Starbucks
      3. cornflakes

      The main Trump, Donald even tweeted a demand for a safe space at the theater:

      https://twitter.com/realDonald...

      There is nobody more sensitive and thin-skinned than a Donald Trump supporter.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    21. Re:treating the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look. If you think your populace is too stupid to discern between a clickbait tabloid and real news (whatever the fuck that is these days), going after the messengers will only aggravate the issue.

      This is windfall of the long-term, intentional program of the right to destroy competent US primary (secular) education. An ignorant populace is an easily deluded and manipulated populace.

      This priority is right up there with dog-whistling intolerance and minority voter disenfranchisement.

      OMGLOLWTFBBQ!!1!!

      The Progressive Left in the US has been in firm control of US education for decades! Pop-Tart chewed into 'L'-shape is a violation of school weapons policy, that's a Right-wing thing? Wearing a US flag or 2nd-A T-shirt is threatening to other students, that's a Righty-thing too? Never mind the teacher's unions and the overwhelming majority of teachers are all moderate to hard-Left. And don't even get me started on the universities and colleges! Thanks to decades of Progressive control of US education, US high-schools are graduating students who are effectively illiterate!

      And, "Minority voter disenfranchisement" like assuring actual living people are voting once and only where they reside? As opposed to armed New Black Panthers standing at the doors of voting locations intimidating voters? Are you from Chicago where the motto is "Vote Often, Vote Dead, Vote Democrat!"?

      LOL! GTFO partisan hack and go collect your CTR micropayment!

    22. Re:treating the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely right, as the Right learned when Trump co-opted their zombie voter force.

      A mob is a dangerous thing, as likely to turn on its masters as any slavering beast of the wild.

    23. Re:treating the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did reading Alt-Right news make you incapable of putting together coherent sentences, or have you always been a moron?

    24. Re:treating the symptoms by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I see you're still in "denial". Wake me when you make it past "anger" and get to "bargaining". But don't rush - if the left can keep its echo chamber intact for 4 more years, Trump get re-elected. Delay introspection all you like.

      I'm in denial of what?

      I know Trump won the election. I knew that was a very real possibility for at least a month beforehand.

      I also know that he's ridiculously unprepared and still doesn't really understand what the job entails.

      I know that he's moderating some of his positions as he talks to the Obama administration during the transition.

      At the same time he's filling his administration with some of the most extreme characters from the right, so that moderation may be gone by February when the extremists are back in charge.

      The guy isn't even in office and he's already caused 1 potential corruption scandal (using his new position to get construction approvals) and two diplomatic incidents (phone calls with Pakistan and Taiwan).

      Trump was supposed to learn the job and start acting presidential during the primary. He didn't.

      Trump was supposed to learn the job and start acting presidential during the general. He didn't.

      Trump was supposed to learn the job and start acting presidential once he became President-elect. He hasn't.

      When is he supposed to grow up and learn the job? 2025?

      When is the right going to stop being in denial and realize there's no brilliant statesman hiding under the hair extensions. The Trump you see is the Trump you get and he is not remotely suited for the position of US President.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    25. Re:treating the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So then which policies are you happy with? The one that cuts off health care to old people so they can die, or the one that cuts off health care for poor people so they can die? Maybe it's the one where people have to be afraid of neo-nazi thugs assaulting them for what they wear or what they believe? Is it the one where republicans try and see if the policies that ruined the budget of Kansas can magically work on the country as a whole, despite all the evidence that it won't?

      Fuck you, fuck your fascists, and fuck their awful ideas.

    26. Re:treating the symptoms by epyT-R · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, pence could've handled that much better. There were plenty of escapes from the fallacies presented by the performers that would've made a solid public statement after the performance. If the performers weren't the snowflakes they were, they would've performed the show and saved the politics for a sane discussion afterward, instead of weaving passive aggression and leers throughout the performance.

      Kelloggs could've said "We like people who like kellogg's cornflakes" instead of taking sides, and, iirc, it was a starbucks employee who bitched about writing 'trump' on a cup which set that incident off. Companies really shouldn't be taking sides in identity politics. It just shrinks their maximum potential markets.

      None of this compares to the decades of cry-bullying by left wing demagogues, esp on university campuses. These kids aren't learning this behavior in vacuums, and these days, it starts in grade school. These PC wankers are one of the big reasons trump won despite his obvious flaws. Trump supporters have a lot of catching up to do in order to reach equity with this legacy.

      Your conclusion is illogical.

    27. Re:treating the symptoms by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The US government has never funded schools by much to begin with. It simple isn't their job to and all the funding they do give comes with strings saying how and when the funding can be spent.

      The states and local municipalities largely fund schools and those political entities do not fund the wars. Your decrease funding to pay for a war might sound good but it shows a lack of knowledge on the scope and magnitude of education funding in the US.

    28. Re: treating the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kellogs provides one sure thing. Obvious demonstration of the hypocrisy of the right when they claim persecution and martyrdom over boycotts.

      I didn't even see Kellogs make a statement, so what, they chose not to spend their advertising budget somewhere? Is that it? Does Breitbart need a handout?

    29. Re:treating the symptoms by tbannist · · Score: 2

      Trump was supposed to learn the job and start acting presidential during the primary. He didn't.
      Trump was supposed to learn the job and start acting presidential during the general. He didn't.
      Trump was supposed to learn the job and start acting presidential once he became President-elect. He hasn't.

      FYI, according to Trump's campaign manager, Kelly-Ann Conway, since Trump is now president elect whatever he does is now "presidential".

      When is the right going to stop being in denial and realize there's no brilliant statesman hiding under the hair extensions.

      So don't hold you breath. They'll be in denial until at least 2026.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    30. Re:treating the symptoms by Calydor · · Score: 1

      So then which policies are you happy with? The one that cuts off health care to old people so they can die, or the one that cuts off health care for poor people so they can die?

      Does this mean we can revive the DEATH SQUADZ! meme?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    31. Re:treating the symptoms by guises · · Score: 1

      Okay, first: my comment shows nothing about what I know on education funding - my comment was not about education funding, it was about the previous two comments.

      Second: the manner in which taxes are collected is a paltry excuse. "Oh noes! This money was collected by the federal government, not by the state government, that's a whole different form. We couldn't possibly write a bill allocating this money for education like we do for highways or healthcare or foodstamps or housing or school breakfasts... guess we'll have to blow it on a war instead. Our hands are tied."

    32. Re:treating the symptoms by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You do realize that the federal government does allocate funding for schools in the exact same manner as highways and food stamps or housing and so on right? Outside of social security and medicare, it is all passed to the states for the state equivalent program to administer with strings attached to how it can be spent. The bulk of all of that is funded by state and local entities in the same way schools are funded. Highways are funded through a fuel tax and certain excise taxes on tires and such but the federal government has a constitutional right to establish post roads (highways)

      And I didn't realize the context of your comment at first. I should have replied to the grandparent instead of you. But the manner in which taxes are collected is not an excuse, it is the order of things. The feds only have as much power as was ceded by the states via the constitution and their ability to stretch clauses beyond obvious meanings. War is a constitutional role for the federal government, schools- not so much. The same with everything else you listed. It exists as some stretch of some related power granted to congress which is why the funding is passed to the states to administrate.

    33. Re:treating the symptoms by lgw · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In denial that the left's echo chamber is why Trump won. The 100% pro-Clinton coverage by the entirely of mainstream media - Fox didn't help. 24x7 propaganda on every channel for a year didn't help. Why? Because no one buys it any more. That dog won't hunt.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    34. Re:treating the symptoms by lgw · · Score: 2

      So then which policies are you happy with?

      I look forward to Trump actually having a policy that he won't flip-flop on. I couldn't begin to predict what that might be, but once the senate, or someone non-Trump, says "this is the deal", well, then we'll know.

      Fuck you, fuck your fascists, and fuck their awful ideas.

      See, AC has moved past denial to anger. This is healthy.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    35. Re:treating the symptoms by Gussington · · Score: 1

      It's the school system that created all this snowflake syndrome we have now. You think that shit starts in college? I have news for you.

      Don't you find it ironic that people who've suddenly adopted the use of the word "snowflake" are themselves the very thing they are accusing others of being?

    36. Re:treating the symptoms by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2, Funny

      snowflakes... identity politics... cry-bullies... PC...

      Aw man, if you'd just said "SJW", I'd have got bingo!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    37. Re:treating the symptoms by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      People still have respect for the mainstream news sites, they just read fake news somewhere and then attribute it to more reputable sources to boost its credibility. When you tell people what they want to hear, they will do mental gymnastics to incorporate it into their personal truth.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    38. Re:treating the symptoms by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't forget their demands for safe spaces on campus, free from people harassing them by disagreeing with their political views.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    39. Re:treating the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a way that's sometimes hard to explain to outsiders, despite getting less than 50% of the votes year after year, the right-wing win everything:

            - 290 vs 228 Presidential electoral votes (56%)
              - 51 vs 48 Senate (52%)
              - 239 vs 193 Congress (60%)
              - 31 vs 18 State governorships (63%)
              - 5* vs 4 Supreme Court (61%)
      * soon

      Even though they win with fewer votes, they insist the elections are fraudulent and enact laws to suppress voter turnout.

      But yeah, apart from the radio and the biggest TV and newspaper outlets, we got the liberal mainstream media.

    40. Re:treating the symptoms by geekmux · · Score: 2

      Honestly , I do not see this going anywhere. This is just part of a wish list to control the information to the masses.

      You must also be one of those lucky citizens who doesn't pay taxes. I see this as just another excuse by government to demand a larger budget, paid for by taxpayers of course.

      The function or effectiveness of this new requirement will never be tracked, and no one gives a shit enough to do so. This continues to allow billions to be poured into pointless programs today. I see no difference tomorrow.

    41. Re:treating the symptoms by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Trump's also been triggered twice now by Saturday Night Live. His latest spilling of the salt shaker is here.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    42. Re:treating the symptoms by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      *Your* failure to connect the dots does not mean that they cannot be.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    43. Re:treating the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It simply isn't their job ...

      Doesn't matter, they have a choice: They can funnel money into a war or they can funnel it into schools and health services. Since municipalities vary widely in revenue, the government should be spending more on schools in poor districts, possibly as after-school services, so the taxpayers have equality of opportunity.

    44. Re:treating the symptoms by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Of course I pay taxes. County and school taxes (I do not even have children), so I am paying for others children to go to school. I happen to agree that this whole fake news is garbage and is nothing more that government sponsored censorship. This is nothing but a new government control that is not necessary. But of course the blame has to be put somewhere as to why the election did not follow the path that they expected.

    45. Re:treating the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are you going to enjoy the next 8 years of President Trump and GOP supermajorities in both houses of congress + governorships and state legislatures?

      That's what your SJW bullshit has directly caused.

      Keep it up, you obese neon-haired dumbshit.

    46. Re:treating the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Triggered? You mean ticked off because a bunch of people who read other people's words for a living decided to abuse their platform to make unwelcome and inappropriate comments to our future VP? Where are the riots? Where are the social workers? Where are the... There aren't any? Shaddap.

      Stabucks? ""I have one of the most successful Starbucks, in Trump Tower. Maybe we should boycott Starbucks? I don't know. Seriously, I don't care. That's the end of that lease, but who cares?"" after he found that they are going to drop Christmas themes. Sounds like his prerogative and that of any Christian who thinks Stabucks move is bad. Again, no riots. Nobody claiming mental anguish. Shaddap.

      Cornfalkes I had to look this up because I haven't even heard a reference to it. It turns out that it's Kellogg that pulled ads from breitbart because they were "triggered". F'ing snowflakes. And a third time, Shaddap.

    47. Re:treating the symptoms by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Other than FOX news, which TV news organization do you consider right wing? I can't think of another. The closest thing I can think of to what could be considered unbiased (simply state all the facts without spin) would be of all people Al Jazeera.

    48. Re:treating the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because FOX's utterly fake story a week before the election about how the FBI had new information and was ready to file charges against Clinton had no impact.

      Yep, 100% pro-Clinton coverage right there.

    49. Re:treating the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude you are such a leftist ideologue....Stop filling your brain with fake news.

    50. Re: treating the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if the Epson jet transponder is published? One good missile up the tailpipe, and the world has a few less pedophiles to deal with.

    51. Re:treating the symptoms by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      There were plenty of escapes from the fallacies presented by the performers that would've made a solid public statement after the performance. If the performers weren't the snowflakes they were,

      As soon as I parse that sentence I'm going to be triggered mightily. A snowflake might presume that the Alt-Right is projecting their own shortcomings on others -- but you know, I'm trying to escape the fallacies I've presented.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    52. Re:treating the symptoms by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Are you going to get it off the tabloids or enforce it with only the right kind of talk shows? What the actual fuck kind of fascist world do you want to live in that forces "truth"???

      The ends do not justify the means you mongoloid.

    53. Re:treating the symptoms by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      What you do with that information is more important than whether or not the populace is too stupid. The ends do not justify the means.

    54. Re:treating the symptoms by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      Bingo. Alternative media is flourishing because the MSM has utterly fucking failed. True investigative journalism is dead.

      Canada has a law which makes it illegal to broadcast false or misleading news. Seems to work pretty well. Sadly, this is unlikely to ever happen in the States, because MUH FREEDOMS OF SPEECH!

      Freedom of speech has limits. Just like you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre, you shouldn't be able to label yourself "news" if you knowingly lie. Just my opinion of course.

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    55. Re:treating the symptoms by lgw · · Score: 2

      "- Fox" That's a minus sign, not a hyphen or an en-dash.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    56. Re:treating the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't try to "hide their bias" in the last election, but there's a reason for that. If one side puts up a tired and uninspiring but professional candidate, and the other puts up a donkey, it would be distorting the truth to treat them equally.

      That's what happened this election. Then the media, predictably, sided against the donkey, and the people apparently assumed that because of that the donkey must be better.

    57. Re:treating the symptoms by aquacrayfish · · Score: 2

      We should be surprised that this scene happened at the play? This happened the same time that the Trump University case settlement was reached. Predictably, because the 'news' is more interested in theater, pun intended, more time was spent covered that manufactured outrage rather than at where our outrage should be reached.

      What, you thought fake news only benefited one political alignment?

    58. Re:treating the symptoms by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      When the polls are in the [insert party of your choice] favor, they proclaim that polls are AWESOME and speak for the Majority. When the polls are against [insert party of your choice] then polls are meaningless.

      When the polls are horribly wrong, they are not to be believed, and if the polls are bad for [insert party of your choice] then it's NEVER the fault of the policies, the history, the campaign, the candidate, or anything that might suggest that they were wrong about something, ever.

      A failure of this magnitude in Market Research would have large numbers of people and vendors fired. But a failure of this magnitude in politics results in a desperate attempt to retain the status quo.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    59. Re:treating the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, pence could've handled that much better. There were plenty of escapes from the fallacies presented by the performers that would've made a solid public statement after the performance. If the performers weren't the snowflakes they were, they would've performed the show and saved the politics for a sane discussion afterward, instead of weaving passive aggression and leers throughout the performance.

      Kelloggs could've said "We like people who like kellogg's cornflakes" instead of taking sides, and, iirc, it was a starbucks employee who bitched about writing 'trump' on a cup which set that incident off. Companies really shouldn't be taking sides in identity politics. It just shrinks their maximum potential markets.

      None of this compares to the decades of cry-bullying by left wing demagogues, esp on university campuses. These kids aren't learning this behavior in vacuums, and these days, it starts in grade school. These PC wankers are one of the big reasons trump won despite his obvious flaws. Trump supporters have a lot of catching up to do in order to reach equity with this legacy.

      Your conclusion is illogical.

      Jesus Christ, I'm sorry you've sided with a group that has repeatedly been found to be mostly gullible, uneducated fools incapable of even understanding basic politics and governance let alone making decisions but stop trying to pretend its some conspiracy. College tends to skew left because if you expand your world view even a little and have mild intelligence it's clear the right is a shit show that has been exploiting the idiots that support them for decades. There's a reason every study, poll and even anecdote distills down to right = uneducated, lower intelligence and left = more educated, higher intelligence. The true brain trusts, the people who should actually make decisions, understand that both sides are shit.

      Trump supporters should be grateful there are people far smarter than them trying to protect them from their own stupidity. We're currently in a national life lesson about not touching the hot stove. This is not going to work out well for this group. In 4 years we will take back the government because now the working class is seen a threat and frankly they aren't smart enough to keep it. They're gullible fools, remember. Easy to exploit when you actively try. But now they've bit the hand of the people literally working towards making them obsolete. Now, that's not going to stop it from happening. We WILL automate their jobs away. Nothing short of the fall of civilization will stop that. What has changed is what happens to them in 10 years when they are literally useless drains on society.

    60. Re:treating the symptoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they absolutely do not have a choice. The US constitution grants the federal government powers and reserves those not grants to the states and the people themselves. Unless something grants the power, they do not have a choice to throw money at schools or take over anything or even ensure equality of opportunity in most situations.

      The federal government does how the power to wage war constitutionally speaking but even then, it is just borrowing money to do it. It is not like they would ever stop spending money that is being borrowed for an act they are constitutionally authorized to perform and start spending it on one they are not constitutionally authorized. They do however stretch every conceivable portion of the US constitution and it's amendments in order to do things that wouldn't on the surface appear to be legit. That is why all school spending from the federal level is tied with strings and can only be used for certain tasks.

      This is simple civics and government. I don't know why they stopped teaching that as part of a required high school credit but it certainly shows. Repeat after me, The US federal government is not some all powerful government like they have in Europe that can do anything it wants. There are limits built into the system because the United States is a union of countries/states, not people.

  4. Closing the gate after the horse has bolted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh well.

  5. More about eliminating WrongThink by mysidia · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The time is coming where any news expressing something the government doesn't want us to hear will
    just have a FAKE label slapped on it, followed by a "Fake News Removal Order" (Evolution of the DMCA) sent to the hosting website.

    If it were really about eliminating the fake news threat; a major goal would instead be to improve education of the people to more readily spot suspicious content, evaluate it logically and rationally, and not be fooled by snake oil.

    1. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read the summary of the article with growing horror as I saw the exact same scenario as you described. Welcome to 1984.

    2. Re:More about eliminating WrongThink by rholtzjr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The current state of the US public education system (e.g "leave no one behind") is a bit questionable. This did nothing but normalize all public education to the lowest common denominator. This will hopefully be addressed this presidential term as promised. However this is a huge undertaking and whether it happens or not is to be seen. But remember, in order to maintain control of the masses, you must keep them happy, but ignorant. So education revamp may not happen.

    3. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the government attempting to capitalize on this and gain more control that scares me; it's how many people are cheering it on, people who claim to be against fascism but are too stupid or too full of themselves to actually recognize it.

    4. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by Luthair · · Score: 1

      I think the issue is more that several consecutive generations have been fed the idea that experts aren't right and shouldn't be respected.

    5. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Experts CAN be wrong . Look at this last election. Experts thought the knew the outcome to a 98% certainty at its highest, and on election night, is only went down to somewhere in the 80's and in the end got it totally wrong. And these were political analysts (e.g EXPERTS).

      What should be done is collect as much information as possible by looking at the information from multiple angles and make the decision based on that information. You know, independent thought. Never blindly accept an answer as true unless you already know the answer.

    6. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      think the issue is more that several consecutive generations have been fed the idea that experts aren't right and shouldn't be respected.

      Fuck experts. You're not right because of a certificate or credential. If you have a cogent argument, the argument is right. If you're good at your job (whatever you're an expert in) you can explain your argument persuasively. Let's take some examples.

      One group says "immigrants took our jobs, and raped our women". The experts say "no they didn't, shut up you racist". Result: Trump is president.

      One group says "I don't believe in this global warming stuff - it has the same pattern as everything else the left made up to seize power." The experts say "the science is settled, shut up you denier". Result: Trump is president.

      Can you see why "experts" are worthless, and what is needed is persuasive arguments? How to fail to persuade: "you're just to stupid to understand, but smart people believe X". How to persuade "I understand why you think that way, plenty of smart people would, knowing what you know. Here are some things you don't know, and why they're important".

      TLDR: saying "experts should be respected" is how you get Trump.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Experts thought the knew the outcome to a 98% certainty at its highest, and on election night, is only went down to somewhere in the 80's and in the end got it totally wrong.

      Not totally wrong. The winning margin in the popular vote, which is now approaching 3 million, is almost exactly where most of the "experts" put it.

      As for the Electoral College, those votes still haven't been cast and the recounts haven't taken place. Expect an interesting few weeks.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One group says "I don't believe in this global warming stuff - it has the same pattern as everything else the left made up to seize power." The experts say "the science is settled, shut up you denier". Result: Trump is president.

      That's an interesting take. I guess that means that when Obama won two elections and leaves office with a higher popularity than Ronald Reagan, during those eight years climate change was real?

      Or are Trump voters kind of stupid people? I heard Ann Coulter today complaining that Donald Trump is betraying his supporters. She remarked, "It's not my fault".

      Despite the fact that she wrote a book titled, "In Trump We Trust". Yes, it appears that Trump supporters make up most of the ass end of the Bell Curve. I assume you've joined their brilliant #DumpKellogs boycott in which they buy Kellogs products and then post selfies of them dumping out those products. That they just bought. Before that, they held a boycott of Starbucks in which they went to Starbucks, bought a $6 coffee and then forced the girl at the counter to write "Trump" on their cup. Not quite clear on the whole, "boycott" concept, but they sure are enthusiastic.

      Here are some more enthusiastic Trump supporters:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11...

      So here what: Trump and his supporters will not be normalized. There will be no point over the next two years when Donald Trump is accepted as President in any normal sense. And when it comes right down to it, there are 3 million more people who voted for someone everybody hated instead of Trump. He's going to have a hard time claiming any mandate or legitimacy. He's the second Republican president in a row who got fewer people to vote for him than the losing candidate, and he has to make sure to stop any effort to actually count all the votes and audit the election process in order to hold on to power. He's already a lame duck and he hasn't been sworn in yet.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      It's understood that people who devote their lives to mastery of a topic other than persuasion may in fact be bad at persuasion... and may also lack social skills and public speaking skills in general.

      That said, I think your distrust is misplaced.

      In your effort to demonstrate how critical you are, you've let slip that all you really need to believe a thing is a persuasive argument from a masterful liar.

    10. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When people realize their mistake, they are going to be pissed.

      And honestly, it's their fault. I can't help thinking that since the USA elected Trump, however marginally and in a bullshit fashion (think FBI-gate), we are still an evil, racist, misogynist and ignorant bunch of a-holes. We deserve a poor government, a wrecked economy, a crushing war and a probably worse for our greedy, immoral, wicked ways. We are so much less than I understood us to be. Granted I am an idealist, and not very cynical, but even so I was raised to believe this country as both good and great. But clearly it is neither.

      I have friends trying to convince me that we are simply ignorant, and have been led by the nose by fake news and propaganda. But clearly people have willingly followed, not seeking out the real data and not thinking critically about this charlatan.

    11. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I voted for Jill Stein, but I'll probably be laughing my ass off all over again when Trump is reelected in 2020, mandate or note. You've got a rough eight years ahead of you, bud. -PCP

    12. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/note/not/ -PCP

    13. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by penandpaper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sigh.

      Or are Trump voters kind of stupid people?

      Such tolerance from the left. Idiots can vote and they vote D and R. There were many reasons to vote for Trump that were rational. Doing so does not undermine someones intelligence even if they are unable to articulate it. Stop acting like you are better than everyone and maybe you might be able to start talking to them without immediately being hostile and condescending. You just just show how you are missing part of the point of lgw's comment.

      Here are some more enthusiastic Trump supporters:

      Have you seen 'enthusiactic' Clinton cry babies since the election? They show that many of her followers fall in the bottom of a bell curve as well. Congratufuckinlations we got nowhere. However, I will note that I have seen more political violence from the left side lately. That is illegal. Racist views and salutes are not illegal. Here is a thought, why not deal with real problems and real legal issues instead of possibilities. Nothing has happened except an election and people are acting and talking as if Hitler burned the Congress. It's childish.

      Trump and his supporters will not be normalized.

      Quite the religious conviction to display by having your outcome determined before anything has happened. Way to generalize an entire group of people.

      there are 3 million more people who voted for someone everybody hated instead of Trump.

      Does not matter and if the left continues to think it can ignore half the electorate and act like you are acting then I would imagine the left continuing to lose. That makes me sad because that means I cannot vote for policies I may agree with. The ends do not justify the means.

      claiming any mandate or legitimacy

      Legitimacy through the constitution you moron. He doesn't mandate anything you moron. The most he can do is change the bureaucratic rules to enforce the 'mandates' i.e. laws.

    14. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by lgw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Or are Trump voters kind of stupid people?

      This is how you get Trump. Keep it up, so he can get re-elected.

      There will be no point over the next two years when Donald Trump is accepted as President in any normal sense.

      Ah, still in "denial". I'm honestly surprised you haven't moved to "anger" yet, since that's sort of your thing. Wake me when you get to "bargaining".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by lgw · · Score: 1

      Direct democracy is all about persuasive arguments from a masterful liars. 2600 years of history to examine, if you doubt it. But fortunately we're a republic.

      People are fairly smart when it comes to things that affect them directly in their day-to-day lives. If you're going to tell them "that SUV you need in your daily life, yeah, you can't have that", well, you're going to need to convince them. Demeaning them won't cut it. If you're going to tell them "even though your neighborhood has gone from 'we don't lock our doors here' to bars in the windows, there's not actually a crime problem", well, you're going to need to convince them. Demeaning them won't cut it.

      Treat people with respect, and explain the truth (if it is the truth) in a clear and compelling way, and you'd be surprised how well that works.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    16. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good points, except you missed the most important one;
      Shut your arrogant, worthless fucking mouth for five minutes and listen to WHY they don't believe the shit you're trying to sell.

    17. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      I disagree. Experts CAN be wrong . Look at this last election. Experts thought the knew the outcome to a 98% certainty at its highest, and on election night, is only went down to somewhere in the 80's and in the end got it totally wrong. ...

      You realise they gave probabilties, not hard projections, right? I can tell you you have a 78% chance of not flipping 3 heads in a row, so the most likely outcome is that you won't. It doesn't make me wrong if you happen to flip 3 heads in a row.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    18. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Fuck experts.

      And this, ladies and gentlemen is why we have Brexit and Trump.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    19. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Treat people with respect, and explain the truth (if it is the truth) in a clear and compelling way, and you'd be surprised how well that works.

      Ah so that explains why 30% of Trump voters are also birthers.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    20. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      "I understand why you think that way, plenty of smart people would, knowing what you know. Here are some things you don't know, and why they're important".

      We tried that, and it didn't work. All we got back were conspiracy theories (China invented global warming!) and outright denials from people who wanted to carry on acting the way they always had.

      It's worth pointing out that most of the experts didn't actually say people were idiots and xenophobes, that was just the inescapable conclusion that even the dumbest people dimly realized.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're ignoring how the side making _positive_ arguments about events needs to bear the burden of arguing for them. In that respect, expertise is certainly relevant for a rebuttal:

      A: "immigrants have raped our women" (and no supporting evidence)
      B: "On what basis are you claiming that? No basis? Shut up you racist"
      C: "I'm an expert on immigration/criminology/punitive public policy and I have not observed this to be the case. Shut up you racist."

      B is a perfectly valid rebuttal, but C is somewhat stronger. This would not be the case if real arguments were made for or against the claim.

    22. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Two points:
      First, they predicted that the Electoral College results would be almost the exact opposite of what they turned out to be. Which makes them totally wrong.
      Second, that popular vote "winning margin" is almost entirely in California...if you subtract California from both candidates' total votes, trump won the popular vote.

      I, also, have a couple of other comments. The popular vote is irrelevant. Both candidates knew this and planned their campaigns accordingly. The recounts are unlikely to change the outcome in any of the states where they are being pushed for. The most likely effect of the recounts is for the Electoral College votes in those states to be invalidated, leading to the election being decided by the House, which is Republican controlled (and for purposes of deciding where the Electoral College did not, Republican dominated). It is improbable that the House Republicans will fail to choose Trump. Which means that the sole purpose of the recounts is to allow Democrats to cast doubt on Trump's legitimacy as President(similar to what they tried to do to George W. Bush).

      The majority of Americans have accepted that the election is over and that Donald Trump won. If that were overturned, the next President would be viewed as illegitimate in the eyes of most Americans. It would be a devastating blow for our system of government because it would reveal to many people who are currently not really paying attention that our government does not really follow the laws as written.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    23. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Of course I realize that these are statistical probabilities based on data they chose to pay attention to in their model. So they gave the wrong outcome due to their data model. 98% probability of a landslide, hmm, so I guess they should be called an unlucky expert, right? NOPE!!!, their data model was flawed. This kind of questions what their level of expertise is wouldn't you think?

    24. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      I don't think the experts said; 'Shut up." That was bloggers supporting the experts.

      The problem most likely was the experts saying persuasive arguments and the Trump voters hearing; "blah, blah blah Science, blah blah blah."

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    25. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Second, that popular vote "winning margin" is almost entirely in California...if you subtract California from both candidates' total votes, trump won the popular vote.

      And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. You wanna start subtracting states? Can we subtract Texas, South Carolina and Mississippi too while we're at it?

      The majority of Americans have accepted that the election is over and that Donald Trump won.

      They also accept that he got 3 million fewer votes than his opponent. Will he be president? Almost certainly. Will he have a mandate? Certainly not. Will he be considered legitimate at any point in the 18 to 30 months he'll be president? Nope.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    26. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He's already a lame duck and he hasn't been sworn in yet." I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "lame duck". It does not mean precisely what you think it does. Trump has total and complete control of all houses of government, plus now the supreme court, and him and his party has complete freedom to quickly ram through their entire, radical agenda, which his appointments make clear he will do. He is the most powerful man in the world, and he has far more power than Obama had the last 4 years. Pehaps "superpowered, turbocharged, almighty duck" is the term you are looking for.

      You can shout "not my president" all you want and stick your head in the sand, but the reality is that he *is* your president and he *will* and *is* changing the status quo drastically in ways you may well hate.

      Tough luck sugarcup. Neither your rant nor all the liberal mods moderating your tears up will change any of that.

    27. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      It does not mean precisely what you think it does. Trump has total and complete control of all houses of government, plus now the supreme court, and him and his party has complete freedom to quickly ram through their entire, radical agenda, which his appointments make clear he will do.

      Right now he barely has control of his Twitter feed. And one thing that people on your side of the aisle are learning quickly, it's that things probably aren't going to work out the way you thought they would when you voted for him.

      We'll see what happens.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    28. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Treat people with respect, and explain the truth (if it is the truth) in a clear and compelling way, and you'd be surprised how well that works.

      This is how you become a legitimate authority on the news. Not some government body of truthiness. Seriously, the MSM lost authority and legitimacy because they did just the opposite.

    29. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FAGGOT

    30. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      OK, so what you are saying is that you will only consider someone as being legitimately the President if you agree with them.

      Donald Trump IS legitimately the President-elect. When he takes the oath of office in January, he will be the legitimate President, even if Hillary gets the Electoral College votes of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania thrown out so that the House decides who the next President is.

      The fact that Trump will be the worst President after Obama has nothing to do with whether or not he is legitimate. The fact that Trump got fewer votes than Hillary is irrelevant, that is not how our system works. If you do not like how the system works, do your best to get the Constitution amended.

      Hillary will never be the President of the United States because the American people realized that she would be even worse than Donald Trump.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    31. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Donald Trump IS legitimately the President-elect. When he takes the oath of office in January, he will be the legitimate President

      This coming from someone who believed Barack Obama wasn't a legitimate president because of his skin color.

      http://i3.cpcache.com/product_...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    32. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by rmckeethen · · Score: 1

      How to fail to persuade: "you're just to stupid to understand, but smart people believe X". How to persuade "I understand why you think that way, plenty of smart people would, knowing what you know. Here are some things you don't know, and why they're important".

      Interestingly, conservatives seem more likely to use argument #1, whereas liberals prefer argument #2. However, in almost every case I've seen recently, neither style of argument actually persuades anymore, likely because no one is really listening to facts these days.

      Sadly, in our current post-truth reality, whoever speaks loudest and most often is the one who wins, and they can lie about anything and everything without consequence.

    33. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by shanen · · Score: 1

      I think we are deluded to think freedom is a good thing. Per my sig, you have to work at being free. You have to collect the information for meaningful decisions, which includes filtering out the fake data, and you have to resist the persuasion and even coercion by advertisers and propagandists pushing their toothpaste, latest pop songs, and political candidates. Too much bother.

      Many Trump voters took the shortcut. Trump promised "Vote for me and I'll solve ALL your problems." If they wanted to be free, then they would have to consider that his proposed solutions are nonsensical, contradictory, or impossible. Sometimes all three at once.

      Reality is going to prevail. It always does. Unfortunately, that appears to be the reality of the Fermi Paradox. So-called intelligent species don't survive long and so-called intelligence is not a survival trait. If we human beings have any survivors, they will probably be the most evil corporations we have created. Human beings will be extinct, but the corporate machines will continue generating ever larger "profits".

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    34. Re:More about eliminating WrongThink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone knows education is the answer.

      Thing is, everyone has known that for a very long time. In modern times there's an unbroken chain of education advocates going back to John Stuart Mill. And as yet, no-one has come up with any idea for how to bring education up to the required standard.

      (Actually that's not true. Lots of people have come up with ideas, and they have all of them, without exception, failed. Because they don't take account of some of the fundamental facts of education.)

      When are we going to grow up and say "education is what it is, we can't rely on it to solve all our problems"? Because it won't.

    35. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      Fuck experts. You're not right because of a certificate or credential.

      I think you make the common mistake of equating "experts" with "credentials." Experts are people who actually KNOW stuff. Credentials are sometimes useful for determining experts, sometimes not. There are plenty of people who don't have a certificate in X which nevertheless may BE an expert in X simply due to their experience, their own independent study, etc.

      So, no -- the fact that you have a credential absolutely does not mean you're right. But the fact that you KNOW more stuff does make it more likely that you're right in that area than someone who doesn't know that stuff.

      If you have a cogent argument, the argument is right.

      Nope -- this is a return to Aristotelean and formal logic thinking. Just because I can create an argument that LOOKS valid according to whatever rules doesn't mean it is correct.

      If you're good at your job (whatever you're an expert in) you can explain your argument persuasively.

      Ah, now we're getting down to what you actually want to talk about, i.e., rhetoric and the art of persuasion. Back in the day (19th century, parts of the 20th especially in elite academies), high schools used to offer classes in rhetoric. Not only were you taught the art of persuasion, but you were also taught about a lot of logical fallacies in argumentation, so you could spot BS as well as deliver it. Rhetoric was a standard subject in formal education dating back to ancient Greek and Roman times, but it has fallen out of favor in the past few generations with rather disastrous results.

      Being a good, persuasive speaker or writer actually is something you can be taught (at least somewhat). It's not just a "natural talent" or whatever, which many people think today. The problem is at some point in our quest for increasing specialization, we stopped teaching specialized "experts" rhetoric and good communication skills.

      Can you see why "experts" are worthless, and what is needed is persuasive arguments?

      Actually, far from being worthless, it's often very beneficial when an expert is also trained in the art of rhetoric and persuasion. The best people at persuasion are those who know the facts thoroughly -- i.e., experts.

      How to persuade "I understand why you think that way, plenty of smart people would, knowing what you know. Here are some things you don't know, and why they're important".

      If you think that's the key to persuasive argument, you're on the right track, but there's a LOT more to it. If you think that merely stating things that other people don't know and why they're important will win most arguments, you obviously haven't been involved in most arguments on the internet for example. People simply aren't very much into listening to detailed arguments anymore. They choose a "camp" and read 140-character tweets and hear 15-second soundbites. If you don't make your case, or if you don't seem on "their side," they tune you out and find a different source.

      There are really only a couple ways to win in that culture: (1) redesign a rhetorical strategy that works in 140-character tweets. Trump seems to have mastered this, but it's hard to get across nuance. (2) Convince the "other side" that you are one of them, so they'll actually sit down and listen to you talk for more than 15 seconds. That often involves a LOT of work, if not outright pretending to be something you're not.

      There are precious few places where you're going to get people's attention for an entire oration anymore -- at least not without half of your audience just tuning out or changing the channel or going to the next video clip on YouTube or whatever.

      TLDR: saying "experts should be respected" is how you get Trump.

      Partly -- that in itself is a rhetorical fallacy known as "appeal to authority" (or, i

    36. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Wow, you did not consider Obama legitimate either?

      If I had known that I would not have bothered to respond to your first post.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    37. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by EmptyHead · · Score: 1

      We already have PC "New Speak" being rammed down our throats constantly. 1984 becoming a reality has really scared me these last 8 years. I had know idea the left could become such extreme fascists with a bit of power given to them. They amass in ridiculously large cities and seem to develop a completely different value system. Look where Hillary won by county, it says volumes. Now they want to change the rules so a simply popular vote will allow these cities (less than 20 of them) to dominate the results of elections for perpetuity, completely disenfranchising the vast majority of the country.

      On the other hand, that is a lot of people to have unhappy with our current system of being a republic. Will we be facing a case for a peaceful succession so both sides can have their way? Give NE and SoCal and some other territory to them to have their own nation? Would we be this divided if more issues were left to the states rather than being decided as federal law? Maybe that's the real problem. Way too many regulations that should have been left to the states.

    38. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by EmptyHead · · Score: 1

      Really? Both sides have dummies, that's a given. Wanna see some links to BLM or anti-Trump riots? Those are not geniuses in the crowds. How about the ObamaPhone six-time voter of 2012? Poking fun at the low end of either side isn't productive.

    39. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by aquacrayfish · · Score: 2

      There will be no point over the next two years when Donald Trump is accepted as President in any normal sense.

      Ah, still in "denial". I'm honestly surprised you haven't moved to "anger" yet, since that's sort of your thing. Wake me when you get to "bargaining".

      I'm amazed at how much this has been said lately and modded up, considering how much people loved bashing Obama over the last several years despite his re-election. Can we just agree that hated of the leader who isn't from your party is a patriotic duty of some sort and just move on? Otherwise this pointless idiocy is going to remain cyclical. And pointless. Did I say pointless?

    40. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Really? Both sides have dummies, that's a given. Wanna see some links to BLM or anti-Trump riots? Those are not geniuses in the crowds. How about the ObamaPhone six-time voter of 2012? Poking fun at the low end of either side isn't productive.

      Yeah, but the low end of your side is now in charge.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    41. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      The whole concept - that there are these "EXPERTS" who are far superior to the rest of us, and we should entrust them with important decisions...

      is complete and utter bullshit. An unbiased "EXPERT" who doesn't desire to exert power over others does not exist.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    42. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      18-30 months he'll be president? What are you planning, Ratzo? The US president is elected for a four year (48 month) term.

    43. Re: More about eliminating WrongThink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PCP, if you voted for Stein, you voted for Trump. You third party assholes screwed it up for the democrats and you know it. At least you can sleep comfortably on your cock shaped pillow at night because you "voted your conscience".

    44. Re:More about eliminating WrongThink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Addressed by the Secretary of Education whose life goal seems to be to shut down public schools??

  6. Good. by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A lot of /.ers will say if you're dumb enough to fall for fake news that's your problem. You're ignoring what happens to millions of people's brains as they age. Not everyone has their full mental facilities in their 50s, 60s and 70s. Unless you're going to start administering tests to decide who gets to vote (and please God, let /.ers be smart enough to know why that's a bad idea) then the problem of fake news needs to be faced head on.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Good. by fnj · · Score: 1, Informative

      Immature know-it-all detected.

    2. Re:Good. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      You know, there's that pesky first amendment to consider. Since Hilliary isn't going to get to stack the court with progressive judges who can reinterpret the Constitution the way it was meant to be written you have to consider that even fake news is protected speech. If lies were against the law we'd have POTUS, all the Senators and every single Representative in the House in jail.

    3. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pssst... tell him to get offa yer lawn

    4. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of /.ers will say if you're dumb enough to fall for fake news that's your problem. You're ignoring what happens to millions of people's brains as they age. Not everyone has their full mental facilities in their 50s, 60s and 70s. Unless you're going to start administering tests to decide who gets to vote (and please God, let /.ers be smart enough to know why that's a bad idea) then the problem of fake news needs to be faced head on.

      And don't forget that teenagers (18, 19 ) can vote. Maybe 1% of that group has any clue about anything.
      My personal experience is that people in their 20's are by far the most easily manipulated age group. They're as gullible as teenagers with the disadvantage of having attended college.
      The oldster's are much more likely to have wisdom and an ability to detach from their personal opinions when analyzing data about things that happened decades ago. Otherwise,

      I would say the only group I would reliably trust are 30 and 40 year olds, except that 95% of the females that age are too horny to think straight about anything.
      The males are OK, except for the unemployed ones, the unmarried ones, the ones that have children, or watch sports on TV.

    5. Re:Good. by whodunit · · Score: 1

      You are essentially arguing that democracy relies on a government that actively decides which media outlets are trustworthy and which ones should be censored. One of the core tenets of Western democracies was that the media was supposed to inform the people, so the people could act against government abuses of power.

      See the problem here?

    6. Re:Good. by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Agreed, fake news has always been there, this is just a new name that has been applied to it.

      Some say that the brain does not fully develop on average until 25-30. Don't know about you, but I still have all my mental faculties at 55. About the only thing that has changed dramatically is the increase in apathy about quite a few things.

    7. Re:Good. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Not everyone has their full mental facilities in their 50s, 60s and 70s.

      Especially when they're medicated all to hell and their doctor tells them to suck it up and enjoy the side effects.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly enough, in European countries, the rise of far-right parties has been hampered by people in their 70s, 80s and 90s who still remember the war (source: INSEE).

      Sure the brain ages. But it is also very powerful. Don't think your grandparents are idiots. We are way dumber than them, probably because we use "smart" devices all day long that prevent us from using our own brains.

    9. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds good. I also like the idea of only allowing those who have skin in the game to vote. That means no government workers, no welfare recipients, no owners of companies that makes any significant portion of their income from government, and nobody who doesn't have a job. Between you and I, we'll get rid of those without their complete mental faculties AND those who should vote because they are parasites who will only vote to drain their host faster.

  7. Sooo by JWW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What part about freedom of the press and "congress shall make no law" don't they understand

    Shit, they might as well name the new effort the Ministry of Truth so that it can be crystal clear what they are trying to accomplish.

    1. Re:Sooo by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Funny

      I know right. You've got all these paranoid people who mistrust the government and then you make a propaganda/truth bureau to reinforce their paranoia.

    2. Re:Sooo by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0

      What part of " to lead government-wide efforts to identify propaganda and counter its effects." don't you understand?

      They are not restricting anyone's right, even foreigners such as the Russian troll factory to lie their asses off.

      What they are doing is the same thing anyone else would do if repeated lies and falsehoods were put forth: countering the lies.

      Oh, and speaking of the Ministry of Truth, Putin has that covered. He has made it illegal for Russian mothers to speak out about their son's deaths in Ukraine, including contacting other mothers to form groups and compare notes on how many soldiers Russia has lost during its invasion of Ukraine.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:Sooo by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 0

      What part of "clear and present danger" don't you understand?

      Shouting "Fire" in a theater is peanuts compared to Russia manipulating US elections.

    4. Re:Sooo by Kohath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's sort of near "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

      It's a living, breathing document. So it means (or, in these cases, doesn't mean) whatever powerful people want it to mean today. Tomorrow it may mean the exact opposite. Because power. And because shut up.

    5. Re:Sooo by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      Well, clearly there's an arms race in government censorship.

      We need to compete with the Russians! Why, their government is FAR FAR AHEAD in lying to the people!

    6. Re:Sooo by penandpaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "manipulating elections" like Snowden manipulated domestic warrantless surveillance policy or Manning manipulated foreign policy. If showing the truth is "manipulation" you have bigger problems than Russia.

    7. Re: Sooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have it half-right Kohath. It will be used to advance the interests of the powerful. Whatever it says.

      Therefore, we must not be fools and pretend that any argument for constitutional restraint is a good one. Far more often, it is the opposite.

      So the real question is, why do you give them more power?

    8. Re:Sooo by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      You're trying to compare whistleblowers like Snowden or Manning to the fake news effort. It doesn't work.

    9. Re:Sooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Came here to make this post, wish i had mod points for you. =)

    10. Re: Sooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... the executive branch of government blatantly lied to legislative branch about the whole domestic spying thing. Now the same people are going to be in charge of deciding what is fake news? Clearly it will be whatever doesn't fit their fascist unconstitutional agenda. Sad century for America.

    11. Re:Sooo by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that what was in the emails are fake? Or are you conflating the source gatherer motives with the veracity of the source material? Honestly, your comment speaks of weak apologetics of 'one side' propaganda that is characteristic of 'fake news' pushers. Should we call the Ministry of Truth to ask if the veracity of those leaks corroborate with 'justifiable behavior' or acceptable outcome? Or should you, as a free agent, have the responsibility to inform your vote to clear your conscience and understand that everyone is trying to convince you of something. You should promote critical thinking and civic responsibility instead of evangelizing the 'fake news' i.e. propaganda in the 21st century. The methods by which it spreads has changed but that does not change propagandas potential to influence the real world. The internet opened avenues for which citizens may gather information. If there seems to be truth with information, such as those email leaks, then the motives of the source become secondary because truth is a more important factor in deciding if you want a war with Russia or not.

    12. Re:Sooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the article said it would be targeting foreign fake news. as in the tons of russian blog bot sites that were spamming social media with click bait flat out batshit incorrect articles during the entire election.

    13. Re:Sooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one gives a shit about the emails. The fake news was effective because it also told conspiracy theories and outright lies. Like the 'list of people killed by Clinton' or even nuttier stuff:

      Another LifeZette article, which went viral in the week prior to the election, falsely claimed that Wikileaks had revealed that a senior Hillary Clinton campaign official had engaged in occult rituals.

      I mean, what the hell, right? But there are people who believe that stuff, apparently.

    14. Re:Sooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what, exactly, is illegal about writing an article in return saying: "this news was bullshit, and here's why"?

    15. Re:Sooo by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      You must be new to the internet. Ever heard of the occult rituals in the Bohemian Grove? There has always been shit like that. It isn't new. It is up to the individual to decide whether or not how they understand the information that they are presented with and if it is true or not. A snake oil salesmen eventually is found out. Maybe, if the media hadn't fucked their job and became pushers of political ideology telling a thousand little lies to promote a narrative they wouldn't be so distrusted creating a vacuum for other sources of information to pick up credibility. Social media only expedited that process by creating competition in the MSM oligarchy.

  8. So when do they by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    So when does the US government fund a war against fake network news, or the general bullshit spewed forth by our elected officials ?

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:So when do they by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Trump just funded that war himself. Seems he won. Now he's got 4 years to show us his bullshit.

    2. Re:So when do they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww. Are you afwaid? Are you tewwified?

      Are you one of those bitches we seen crying on election night?

    3. Re:So when do they by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The US government will try to spend trillions on the war, while Trump will win it w/o spending even a dime. But only until Jan 20th, when Trump gets to end this war since he'll be on the same side

    4. Re:So when do they by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      You simpleton, did it ever occur to you that maybe I was one of the tens of millions that didn't like either candidate? That I was one of the millions upon millions that held their nose against the smell as I chose my candidate? That I'm one of the millions of Trump supporters that now waits to see what he does now that he's elected and if he truly was a better choice than the awful Hilliary? I'm seriously hoping he's half what he claims to be. If you're so fucking confident of it being a rosy world you truly are a simpleton.

  9. this is deplorable by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    mixed in with the Streisand Effect

  10. So block China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cheap and quick, isn't it?

  11. Elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What, the US mainstream media didn't work hard enough disparaging Donald Trump for the last year? Let's dredge up the Russia boogeyman again and say Russian propaganda is a threat to US propaganda. We need to install a new government branch called the Department of Propaganda to counter such danger to national security. Citizens and countrymen, it's time to double, nay triple our propaganda efforts this time, so that it doesn't fail again!

    1. Re:Elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Department of Propaganda

      No, that's a terrible idea. We should call it the Ministry of Love instead.

    2. Re:Elephant in the room by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      I think you mean Ministry of Truth.

  12. Trump won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Trump won. Hillary lost. The establishment is imploding. The swamp is draining.

    By the way, I'll call the bluff. Exactly what "fake news" caused the election to go Trump's way? And what's your evidence? I can wait.

    1. Re:Trump won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The swamp is draining.

      LOL! Thanks, I needed a bit of humor.

    2. Re:Trump won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump won. Hillary lost. The establishment is imploding. The swamp is draining.

      Hahaha, you alt-reich guys are sooooo naive. Ivanna Trump and her husband are the connection to the establishment. The New Establishment. You're a fool.

    3. Re: Trump won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No "fake news" or evidence, huh? Called it. You alt-reality types don't deal in falsifiable claims and proof. It would be cute if it weren't so disgusting.

    4. Re: Trump won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww I viowated its wickle safe space! OMG SO CUTE I think it's triggered!

  13. Smith-Mundt Act was repealed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (part of the National Defense Authorization Act) has repealed the domestic prohibition, allowing the government's propaganda to be directed at/created for Americans for the first time in over 40 years.

    1. Re:Smith-Mundt Act was repealed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck! There went the democracy as there can be no such thing with the government spreading misinformation or lying. Better start monitoring those court cases and missing people and homicide reports for patterns. Then again, government explaining it's reasons for decisions and facts related to them is completely different thing. People who disagree with the government decisions call this propaganda.

    2. Re:Smith-Mundt Act was repealed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Just flat out wrong:

      “SEC. 208. CLARIFICATION ON DOMESTIC DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAM MATERIAL.

      “(a) In General.—No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States.

      https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

    3. Re:Smith-Mundt Act was repealed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is blatantly wrong:

      https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

      “SEC. 208. CLARIFICATION ON DOMESTIC DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAM MATERIAL.

      “(a) In General.—No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States.

    4. Re:Smith-Mundt Act was repealed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Stop making things up! Here's the act. Read it for yourself:

      https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/12/03/2257244/the-us-government-funds-a-war-on-online-fake-news

      “SEC. 208. CLARIFICATION ON DOMESTIC DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAM MATERIAL.

      “(a) In General.—No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States.

    5. Re:Smith-Mundt Act was repealed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems you missed Sec. 208 (b).

      “(b) Rule of construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material, or based on a presumption of such exposure. Such material may be made available within the United States and disseminated, when appropriate, pursuant to sections 502 and 1005 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1462 and 1437)...

      ---------

      In other words the BBG is free to make propaganda, so long as the propaganda purpose is for "foreign" purposes. If the BBG fulfills this requirement, than that piece of propaganda can be distributed back at home.

  14. No thx, this will just be add to the manipulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The humorous part about this is that we already have all sorts of manipulation going on and certain major parties on both sides are just upset because the Russian's have gotten in on the act. Now theses parties don't dominate in the manipulation of the people so they are upset. The solution should not come from any government. No. The only good solution is to eliminate the government. It's pointless to manipulate when there is nothing to be gained. The way things are you have socialists (I'm going to call you what you are regardless of if you call yourself a democrat, a republican, a socialist, or something else) and capitalists (ie corporations) manipulating the system for personal profit. We should shut down the wealth redistribution programs (welfare, social security, etc). Every one of them including manipulative government indoctrination programs they call 'public schools' in the USA (ie government funded). We don't need to pay for traditional boarder guards when there is no wealth redistribution. Each person can fight for there own financial independence (jobs, etc) based on their own merits instead of what we have now which is a socialist job entitlement program (the stuff that keeps immigrants out). I'm not for H1B visas because they enslave immigrants and lower American wages artificially by tying immigrant employees to companies and preventing them for obtaining the prevailing wage (quiting means going home and applying for a new job all over again).

    I want freedom for all, liberty, and an ability to do as I please so long as I'm not hurting others. I shouldn't need to ask permission to travel (drivers licenses) or open a business (licenses). This is a prior restraint on trade and it's just as dangerous as a prior restraint on speech.

    If you want freedom and won't accept "for the sake of [safety] because of [paedophiles] [terrorists] [communists] [anarchists] [homosexuals][rapist immigrants][Russia/China/Iraq/Iran/North Korea/etc]" or whatever the latest scare tactics of the day is then you should migrate to New Hampshire and help us take back our freedoms and liberty. Our liberty-minds are too spread out to do it any other way. We need to focus on the state as it has the largest impact on the most people relative to the federal government. A lot more can be achieved at the state and local level to shrink the prison population. We don't need to be a majority in the state even. We just need an active minority to have a big enough voice to make a huge difference. We're almost there with the Free State Project- with 20,000 people working on moving in the next 4 1/2 years and 10% to that goal already. Check out www.freekeene.com and www.freestateproject.org and porcfest (summer camping festival to see what its like up here, and New Hampshire Liberty Forum).

  15. they always blame Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and it's all fake as hell

    1. Re:they always blame Russia by unixisc · · Score: 1

      People who blame Russia should be sent to Russia so that they can be sued in a Moscow court

  16. So Big Brother needs to change the rules? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The First Amendment is now under attack after a shocked Big Brother is left with his head spinning after Emmanuel Goldstein won the election? Double plus good.

    Who woulda thunk it?

    1. Re:So Big Brother needs to change the rules? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Goldstein won the popular vote, but BB looks to take the Electoral College.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  17. Even Ron Wyden Fell For It by mentil · · Score: 2

    Russian propaganda is an excuse and diversion to prevent people from realizing that this is a new effort of the US government to create and disseminate propaganda to the American public, fully backed by the law. The line "2017 intelligence authorization bill calling for new executive branch efforts" sounds a lot to me like "President Trump will have this new propaganda tool at his disposal to hoodwink US residents even further than they already have been by every source already."
    It also smacks of a return to the Cold War anti-USSR propaganda spouted by every source. I can't help but feel a "wag the dog" situation is unfolding, with a growing Russian bogeyman to distract us from our growing domestic problems.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  18. This is old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is old news. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

  19. Trump thanks you for this new power by Kohath · · Score: 1

    Trump will use this new government power to determine which news is legitimate and which is "fake". Perhaps he will send the IRS after his enemies in the "fake" news camp, just like the Obama Administration did with the Tea Party. I hope you're not on the donor lists the IRS will be demanding from those organizations that Trump doesn't like. If you are, you better have all your financial records in order.

    The FEC may also want to talk to you if your donations funded any "Citizens United" style communications to voters about Mr. Trump or his close allies. Hope you didn't make a criminal mistake by donating to the Wisconsin recount efforts or supporting them materially.

    Big Government power sure is awesome, isn't it?

    1. Re: Trump thanks you for this new power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump will do what Trump does regardless. If you're worried about his ability to use the government, then consider that he would do the same if there was no government to stop him.

      But go ahead, dream of your precious anarchy.

  20. Covert? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    "[C]ounter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence over peoples and governments."

    Covert? Seemed rather overt to me.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    1. Re: Covert? by Luthair · · Score: 1

      What, were the articles written with a Russian accent?

    2. Re: Covert? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What, were the articles written with a Russian accent?

      They had a preponderance of articles on the location of moose and squirrel.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  21. Well thats just scary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty sure that the government waging a war against "fake" news is a violation of freedom of the press.

    Also government has no purview over what gets published in the international community so there really isn't much to be done.

    Besides the government has no interest in dispelling misinformation when its a narrative that they want to perpetuate. It's only when the message is contradictory to that
    agenda do they have any interest in making a complaint .

  22. Predictable... by rantrantrant · · Score: 1

    When foreign state-funded news agencies started making their content available in English and broadcasting it on the internet, the USA was bound to cry foul for losing control of the public narrative. Now they're trying desperate measures to get it back. What I wonder is how they're going to frame it so that news from regimes that they don't like is labeled FAKE, while news from others is allowed. RT doesn't have to make stuff up to make the US govt. look bad. All they're doing is hiring critical US journalists and satirical comedians to report facts however they want to (as long as they're not critical of Putin or the Kremlin). It's not that hard to do.

    1. Re: Predictable... by rantrantrant · · Score: 1

      Oh, and "war on fake news"? We all know how the wars on drugs, poverty, and terrorism have worked out. Sounds like the guys in Washington are a bunch of masochists.

    2. Re:Predictable... by bmo · · Score: 1

      >All they're doing is hiring critical US journalists and satirical comedians to report facts however they want to (as long as they're not critical of Putin or the Kremlin). It's not that hard to do.

      RT, DW, BBC, Al-Jazz, etc., don't have to make shit up to make the US look bad. This "hurr the Russians were fucking up our election" bullshit pales in comparison to the actual shenanigans (seals on WI voting machines *visibly* broken, the latest news... and going back to the restriction on voting venues in many states, even my home state, Rhode Island, during the primaries, as just two examples off the top of my head) that took place during the election season.

      And the US media mindlessly repeating Clinton gas lighting was particularly infuriating to Bernie voters so much that much of them stayed home, because ... "fuckit, we don't need your vote" and "deplorables."

      The only people who buy this "russian" nonsense are low-information people that get their news /only/ from the OTA broadcast networks. Or something. I don't know. Whoever keeps forcing this issue expects everyone to be dumb, I guess.

      And one of the latest "we don't fucking get it" things is that Nancy Pelosi is now Minority Leader. Because the public didn't shout loudly enough that they're tired of the same old shit by electing Trump.

      So yeah, it's all the fault of the Russians.

      --
      BMO

    3. Re: Predictable... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hey, those wars worked great for them. Didn't it make them rich? So what's your problem? That these wars didn't eliminate drugs, poverty or terrorism? Who would want to eliminate that which gets me money?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  23. Nothing to do with fake news. by BigBuckHunter · · Score: 1

    Zero to do with "fake" news (as if real news exists). Everything to do with wrenching 160m from taxpayers and handing it to friends of big government.

  24. Is Jill running away with all that donated cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pulled the recount in PA... Where's the money at now? How much did you get taken for?

  25. depolarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The current state of affairs is too complicated for an AC analysis in a single post but I will say a few things. The two main political parties are closer to each other than we realize. If you look at Europe and elsewhere, you find greater differences and more parties. Because they are so similar, they have spent decades attempting to distinguish themselves and their supports from the each other. They have played the people against each other through sensationalist rhetoric, attack campaigns (good ol' muckraking as it used to be called), lies and incessant fear that the other party is trying to destroy your life and family. We've dug a 3 mile deep trench in a 10 foot wide field and convinced everyone that the people on the other side are monsters. Incidentally, this sort of dehumanizing psychology is what allowed so many soldiers to view the enemy as animals and treat them accordingly. When we no longer see people, we are no longer bound by any empathy.

    So how is this relevant to fake news? The connection is simple imo. If you believe that the other side is a manipulative, pathological liar, then everything they say and everything that agrees with their viewpoint must be wrong. It can't be considered or even analyzed. So what do you do? You seek out views that reflect your own side and you end up in an echo chamber.

    While I believe that the internet has the greatest potential we have ever seen to bring us together and unite us as a species on a path to a better future, that potential is not being realized. We may be here together on this site right now, collectively considering the consequences of fake news, the recent election, the growing surveillance across the globe, and we may share the same shock and dismay and even fear, but this is yet another echo chamber. All forms of social media seem to reinforce this and the potential of the itnernet is lost in groupthink.

    We have reached a point where the American government is going to start policing media for fake news in the interest of national security. This is the motivation of China with their great firewall. That was the motivation of the old Soviet governments. Censorship and control are not the answer. Meaningful dialogue and a critical eye are. We need to stop with the vehement rhetoric and the everpresent need to prove the other side wrong or scream about how the sky is falling. We need to calmly start asking for citations and weigh the evidence presented. We need to remember that most issues are finely nuanced and that sometimes both sides are partially right and partially wrong. We need to stop seeking out spurious information that confirms our own worldview and re-inforces our comfy bubble, but rather seek out contrary information and evaluate it.

    If we can do that then all the BS in the world from foreign state agents won't make a difference. We are only susceptible to it now because of all the ridiculous infighting. Decades of that have left us uncritical, petulantly defensive, blind to facts, and obstinate to an impossible degree.

    If your response to this is to just blow it off as "yeah, people are stupid, you can't do anything about it" or make more sarcastic comments then you are part of the problem. This can be changed. Shitty government can be changed. Shitty news agencencies can be run out of business. It just won't happen if we're all sitting around mouthing off about how bad everything is on the internet instead of discussing ways to fix it.

    Of course, the pessimistic cynic in me says that this won't even show up on the page. Prove that voice wrong.

    1. Re:depolarize by raind · · Score: 1

      It's rare for me to respond to a ac - but mod up..!

      --
      Get up!
    2. Re:depolarize by shanen · · Score: 1

      Many good points negated by your faceless cowardice. Lots to say in reply, largely in agreement, but not to thin air.

      Therefore, I reduce my response to one question: What part of your comment scared you so much?

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    3. Re:depolarize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to hell, you damn troll! Posting anonymously doesn't anyone a coward. We all know what a dick you are, so take a hike!

  26. AND THIS IS WHY TRUMP WON! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jury rules!

    No, it doesn't have to make sense to you!

    Trump won!

    Kick China to the curb? Yes!

    Who's Next? Which wasteland?

  27. The fix is in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The big parties hate that they've been undermined by a reality TV show host who's also a known buffoon and they're dropping the gloves. They'll take you to a dark room and beat you to within an inch of their lives if you have more than a handful of followers on Facebook and you publish anything that makes them look bad. We need to get back to the days of Democrat vs Republican with a small fringe of third party yahoos just to make it look democratic and all that.

    They'll let you know what you can and cannot publish and don't be fooled into thinking your rights mean anything. They know you and your family's dirty little secrets, they've been through your personal effects already and they can make it look like suicide if you push back. They've done it before but you wrote it off as tin foil nutters. Now it's gone full scale with no pretense as to who is in and who is out.

    Merry Christmas. Enjoy being fucked by The Man.

    1. Re:The fix is in! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But who is "the man"? And who is NOT "the man"?

      That's the key question here. Just because someone is wrong doesn't mean that someone contradicting him is right.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  28. Is Joe McCarthy back? by clovis · · Score: 1

    Oh, great. So now we'll have a truth commission
    Next we need to find the disloyal propaganda-spewing reporters and make them sign loyalty oaths.
    Oh, and don't forget that Hollywood is owned by foreigners. Something should be done about that.

  29. Why does the USA care so much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously. They meddle in elections all over the globe.
    Elect anyone who is slightly socialist?
    USA to the rescue!!
    Elect someone the USA doesn't like? Must be election fraud!!
    Nationalize oil companies? Here, have an embargo.
    Violate the human rights of women and immigrants, don't have democratic elections, no freedom of religion, no free press?
    Please be our ally UAE!!
    Honestly, fuck the US and their hypocrisy.
    They can complain about russians influencing their election when they stop fucking around with countries all over the world.

  30. Martyr Jon Stewart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "going after the messengers will only aggravate the issue."

    History might have an example or two.

  31. File under "history" by whodunit · · Score: 2

    Historical article: "Establishment of Minitrue"

  32. Say Good Bye to CNN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CNN fabricates everything and spouts it out as news. MSNBC is close behind them.

  33. Investigate NYT and WP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funded by Qatari and Saudi money to publish fake news and anti-American propaganda.

  34. The Decline of Big Media has been Noticed by jaa101 · · Score: 1

    This is the government realising that the internet is taking control of ideas away from big media and giving it to the people ... of the whole world. Unfortunately some of the people are apparently paid by the Russian government and that's going to be hard to deal with. Big media is relatively easy for the government to control, or maybe it's the other way around. Either way, neither of them like the change in the status quo. Luckily for those in the US, you have strong constitutional protections for free speech.

    1. Re:The Decline of Big Media has been Noticed by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      The problem is that people equate being able and allowed to tell the truth with some sort of obligation to do so, and that's dangerous. You have the same effect as you do with people being dissatisfied with the medical system or with science. I do not want to believe in established science/pharmacy/news, and there is someone else who sells "non-establishment" science/pharmacy/news, so he must be right because "the establishment" is something I don't trust.

      And that's dangerous.

      Just because A is false doesn't automatically mean that B is true just because B contradicts A.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  35. FAKE NEWS ALERT ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ,,, PUSSY GRABBER becomes President of the United States of America.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:FAKE NEWS ALERT ... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Also in the news, dissatisfied house wives plan march on Washington.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:FAKE NEWS ALERT ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Dissatisfied housewives voted the bastard in.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    3. Re:FAKE NEWS ALERT ... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Probably hoping for some groping.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  36. US declares the Onion an enemy of the state. by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

    In a last ditch desperate plea to the community, The Onion posts an article that the feds are coming, and they need help, but everyone just laughs at it.

  37. Re:worst ones by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, we know. All mainstream media are fake news. All hail the trustworthy Fox News and Breitbart. Wikipedia has a left-wing bias, as has physics, universities, Einstein (dirty Jew) and science in general. All hair our great Fuerer Trump and his new Mobocracy.

  38. Re:worst ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In general I agree with your sarcasm, but - reportedly - something like 97% of university professors self-identify as "left".

  39. The only true way to combat fake news by Z80a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is to fix the credibility of the so called real news, in this election they basically burned all their goodwill as fast as a gamegear plow thru batteries.

  40. Total Coincidence by Sartr · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Rumors about Pizzagate hit the internet. Twitter removes people talking about it. Reddit deletes the group talking about it (but leaves actual groups of pedophiles online!). Even 4chan, the internet's cess pit is trying to censor it. The MSM won't touch it. Suddenly there's a big war on "fake" news, simultaneously by the new media, the old media, and now the government.

    This much censorship makes it MORE likely there's something to the allegations, not less. Nobody cares when the National Enquirer makes up nonsense about Brangelina or the Weekly World News claims to have found aliens.

    1. Re:Total Coincidence by quantaman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Rumors about Pizzagate hit the internet. Twitter removes people talking about it. Reddit deletes the group talking about it (but leaves actual groups of pedophiles online!). Even 4chan, the internet's cess pit is trying to censor it. The MSM won't touch it. Suddenly there's a big war on "fake" news, simultaneously by the new media, the old media, and now the government.

      This much censorship makes it MORE likely there's something to the allegations, not less. Nobody cares when the National Enquirer makes up nonsense about Brangelina or the Weekly World News claims to have found aliens.

      Media should ignore fake news when possible. Reporting it, even to debunk it, tends to give the story more credibility and make the target look more suspicious.

      Pizzagate is a great example. It's fake news, a particularly ridiculous piece of fake news where people have invented a massive pedophile network all because they didn't understand why a restaurant owner (who was also a fundraiser) was mentioned in an email.

      Pizzagate isn't a scandal. It's a trashy detective model where the characters have been given names of real people.

      Now were Twitter and Reddit right to censor those discussions? I don't know. Going by the fact I've been spared knowing about this particular piece of stupidity until now I can't say they're wrong.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:Total Coincidence by Xenographic · · Score: 0

      Those articles barely touch what's been found and "debunk" claims people aren't making.

      You can look here for an actual investigation, rather than an NYT or Snopes article that covers one or two items, ignoring the fact that the random images were on the owner's Instagram (now only existing in archives, imagine that).

      Now I'm not going to say that he's a pedophile--that hasn't been proven and you won't find many people seriously claiming that. But there's a lot of damned suspicious stuff and people are still investigating.

      You left off Wikipedia. Unless it's been edited since then (which is possible) it had barely any mention of it either. Infogalactic has the real info now. And Gab.ai is the Twitter replacement.

    3. Re:Total Coincidence by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Those articles barely touch what's been found and "debunk" claims people aren't making.

      You can look here for an actual investigation, rather than an NYT or Snopes article that covers one or two items, ignoring the fact that the random images were on the owner's Instagram (now only existing in archives, imagine that).

      Now I'm not going to say that he's a pedophile--that hasn't been proven and you won't find many people seriously claiming that. But there's a lot of damned suspicious stuff and people are still investigating.

      You left off Wikipedia. Unless it's been edited since then (which is possible) it had barely any mention of it either. Infogalactic has the real info now. And Gab.ai is the Twitter replacement.

      I did read it, it's hilarious.

      Keep in mind the goal is to claim that all these DNC bigwigs are in some giant pedophile ring.

      And the evidence of this is a DNC fundraiser, who owns Comet Ping Pong, was mentioned in an email by a campaign chair (gasp! a campaign chair mentioning a fundraiser!), which apparently means he's at the centre of a pedophile ring.

      There's apparently a second restaurant next door, called Besta Pizza, who had as a logo a stylized picture of a pizza slice that apparently had "pedo symbols" in the logo. Because secret pedophile rings advertising it in their friggin logo is apparently more likely than someone unintentionally making something that reminds you of a super-obscure image.

      Now here is where your "actual investigation" comes in with the top rated "smoking gun" article going after not people from the DNC, not the Comet Ping Pong that was super-tangentially connected to the DNC, but a restaurant that happened to be next door to Comet Ping Pong and happened to have a logo that reminded someone of some super-obscure "pedo symbols".

      So the "investigation" is a massive "X was accused of Y, and X has some sort of relationship with Z, so Z is guilty of Y." And via this investigation technique they manage to implicate... "Besta World Group" which they can't actually connect to "Besta Pizza"... but two brands in completely different industries on different sides of the planet using the word "Besta" in their name? Oh they must be connected!!!

      I'm sorry that is not an investigation, that's someone desperately digging for dirt and failing in spectacular fashion.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re:Total Coincidence by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      You have a weird model of investigations where someone needs to prove things before actually investigating. It may indeed prove that nothing can be found here. But the only way to know that is to actually examine facts. Declaring that there's nothing to be found without even looking just makes you look biased.

      Anyhow, it's not as if we haven't seen pedos in places of power before. Here's a big list:
      https://medium.com/@LoriHandrahan2/daniel-rosen-s-arrest-1f7befb1762c#.sa25w4uo3

      I'm not going to claim anyone is guilty of anything without proof. However, anyone who starts yelling and screaming for people to stop looking is just going to make themselves look more suspicious. You don't normally get well-connected media types to all jump on a story like this...

    5. Re:Total Coincidence by quantaman · · Score: 1

      You have a weird model of investigations where someone needs to prove things before actually investigating. It may indeed prove that nothing can be found here. But the only way to know that is to actually examine facts. Declaring that there's nothing to be found without even looking just makes you look biased.

      Actually you have it backwards. If you're law enforcement you need evidence before you start looking, otherwise it's a fishing expedition which courts generally disallow.

      The reason is fishing expeditions are usually only used against targets law enforcement doesn't like, and as such they don't get fair treatment. Any marginal evidence they do find gets interpreted as proof, and any marginal crimes law enforcement would have ignored otherwise are pursued full-force as a consolation prize (and as a way to break open the original investigation).

      That's why the US constitution has so many restrictions on law enforcement and unreasonable searches, because they target unpopular people more than criminals.

      Now none of the people investigating "pizzagate" are law enforcement but the same principal applies. The only evidence of a crime is the fact that you're all desperately digging looking for a crime. Yet you're trying to punish the target in the court of public opinion by implying that they're already guilty.

      I'm not going to claim anyone is guilty of anything without proof. However, anyone who starts yelling and screaming for people to stop looking is just going to make themselves look more suspicious. You don't normally get well-connected media types to all jump on a story like this...

      The problem is by "investigating" you're accusing people of being pedophiles, and you're fully aware that if the media reports on "pizzagate" you're just going to end up with a lot of people thinking that a DNC pedophile ring is a real established thing.

      If you're so desperate for the media to cover pizzagate are you equally desperate for the media to cover Trump being sued for raping a 13 year old girl? Because there's much better evidence for that than anything in pizzagate, but the media generally restrained themselves from heavy coverage since they know the evidence wasn't great.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    6. Re:Total Coincidence by quantaman · · Score: 1

      You have a weird model of investigations where someone needs to prove things before actually investigating. It may indeed prove that nothing can be found here. But the only way to know that is to actually examine facts. Declaring that there's nothing to be found without even looking just makes you look biased.

      Anyhow, it's not as if we haven't seen pedos in places of power before. Here's a big list:
      https://medium.com/@LoriHandrahan2/daniel-rosen-s-arrest-1f7befb1762c#.sa25w4uo3

      I'm not going to claim anyone is guilty of anything without proof. However, anyone who starts yelling and screaming for people to stop looking is just going to make themselves look more suspicious. You don't normally get well-connected media types to all jump on a story like this...

      Well there ya go. It's gone past slandering and harassing innocent people and now some nut nearly went on a killing rampage because of this "investigation".

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:Total Coincidence by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      The people investigating aren't police. They're allowed to look at publicly available stuff on the web.

      And no, a bunch of anonymous witnesses who somehow get death threats... even though nobody knows who they are... doesn't impress me much.

    8. Re:Total Coincidence by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      That dude is an idiot. I'm not sure what he thought he would accomplish, but I'm glad nobody got hurt.

    9. Re:Total Coincidence by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      I'd also like to point out, for the record, I have not accused any of these people of being a pedophile.

      The worst I said was that they had questionable taste in art and friends, none of which is illegal.

    10. Re:Total Coincidence by EmptyHead · · Score: 1

      If they were certain it was false, they were correct to censor the slanderous garbage PizzaGate stuff. It resulted in an act of violence recently as well. I find it abhorrent that our MSM in the US has become so untrustworthy that other sources are being pursued - some of them fake. I try to use BBC or Al-Jazeera at times when our "journalists" seem to be overly political.

  41. What about that anti-Muslim video? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You remember.......the one the Obama administration blamed for the Benghazi attack? Does that count as fake news?

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:What about that anti-Muslim video? by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      Ironically, thanks to the leaks we eventually found that they did have a report claiming that. Mind you--the report was later proven wrong--but they did have such a report.

      Also the amount of crap they stored in Gmail that shouldn't have been makes me wonder just how long before Google takes over due to bad opsec.

  42. Re:worst ones by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    All hair our great Fuerer Trump and his new Mobocracy.

    You're a recent college graduate and on drugs, aren't you?

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  43. There is only fake news by Zemran · · Score: 2

    I used to turn to BBC for reliable news but once they became embedded during the Iraq war they never extricated themselves and are no longer a reliable news source. I turned to Al Jazeera who always reported both sides and went out of their way to help me understand the other side of the story but the US military actually targeted them and arrested them so they stopped printing the truth. There is only fake news left. I now read a variety of sources like Russia Today as well as western news and judge the truth to be somewhere in the middle of the two lies.

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    1. Re:There is only fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I now read a variety of sources like Russia Today as well as western news and judge the truth to be somewhere in the middle of the two lies.

      Hint; you are reading two news sources run by Oligarchs (check the recent research about US democracy being extremely oligarch lead). It's very likely that RT and US news sources like Breitbart, CNN the Huffington Post and the Slate all agree on things which are strongly against your interests. They are all representatives of big corporations. Some more so, some less. This does not mean that the truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle.

    2. Re:There is only fake news by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. Since its inception the BBC have been fastidiously impartial in their reporting, however times have changed and I was disgusted to see how BBC America were so blatantly pro-Hillary, and also how they now allow/encourage their news presenters to make personal off-hand observations on stories thay are reporting. Consequently we now get Katty Kay et al. using BBC America as their personal media channel to push their radical feminist and political views.

    3. Re:There is only fake news by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Not saying you're wrong, just wondering which big corp has the BBC in its pocket.

    4. Re:There is only fake news by EmptyHead · · Score: 1

      Al Jazeera is still good unless they start talking about conflict in the middle east and then it gets pretty one-sided, understandably. You picked the same two sources that I do when I see US MSM sources spewing slanted opinion instead of news: BBC, Al-Jazeera. Most of Europe simply echos CNNi so they usually aren't very helpful either.

    5. Re:There is only fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try VICE News - it may seem left-leaning, but that's because truth isn't always conservative.

      Except you have to get them on YouTube if you don't subscribe to HBO.

  44. This will be short lived by goombah99 · · Score: 0

    While Democrats and Republicans abuse 501C3 laws to obfuscate political contributions it's patently true that Republicans do to great excess. Evidently it's simply embarrassing to own a coal mine and fund people who deny climate change. One might quibble about degrees here but that's my impression.

    Thus the push back on the IRS when they called BS on this and discovered they were going after more repupublican than democratic orgs. A political no no even if pure logic dictates thats the distribution of abuse.

    Here the same thing is going to happen. Even the maldovian spam artists discovered there was no profit in fake news about hilary but tonnes of gullible people on the trump side of things willing to click.

    money talks. The experiment has been done. Sorry if the results embarrass your politics.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:This will be short lived by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be "maldavian"?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re: This will be short lived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the presidential election. Who had unlimited money from special interests? Was it the republican candidate? Your bias blinds you and makes you easily controllable. The puppet masters win again.

  45. So, more paid trolls. by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    After a year of dealing with CTR shills, this is the last thing I want to hear.

  46. If it appeals to liberals ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it appeals to liberals it's called "click bait" and is just a fact of life.
    If it appeals to conservatives it's "fake news" and is an attempt by Russia to subvert democracy and must be stopped.

  47. What happens for the other 22 months? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Once Trump is inaugurated that war will be ended. Does it give the POTUS the option to redirect the remaining funds elsewhere? Somehow I doubt Trump is going to get the people working under this bill all jobs at Carrier though...

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  48. This is a propaganda effort in itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By making it a serious matter, official, and speak of classified documents, most people will believe it, and every lie that comes from it, to be true. This is a propaganda effort in itself, to make people believe that Russia is constantly attacking the free West with fake news and lies, and to create anti-Russian sentiments among the American public.

  49. Re:worst ones by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    You're a recent college graduate and on drugs, aren't you?

    Unlike you, he was able to pass the entrance exam.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  50. Re:worst ones by guises · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd like to see that report, 97% is way too high to be believable. I don't think you could get 97% of people to self-identify as human.

  51. Re:worst ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All hair our great Fuerer Trump and his new Mobocracy.

    You're a recent college graduate and on drugs, aren't you?

    For what it is worth, I am a PhD and definitely not a recent college graduate. Most of those are legitimate news sources, but then that has less meaning than it used to. I do watch a fair amount of CNN, or rather listen when I'm doing something else. CNN tends to be mostly correct, but they also gave Trump lots of free air time, not because they like Trump, but because they like money. CNN is also fact light. They need to fix that, but first they need to fire all the shills. If your primary purpose is to represent a party or a candidate, you should be gone.

    Still, to be fair, CNN was certainly way better than the crap that was floating around Facebook. It was beyond criminal that this crap wasn't denounced by _everyone_, but then Trump never complains when he is helped, regardless of how bad it is for the country.

    How do we fix it? My suggestion is this.

    1) Enough tax money to pay for many independent news agencies at various levels, local, state, etc.

    2) The boards leading the agencies can be elected, but cannot have any association with any political candidate in the past so many years.

    3) Each agency checks the reporting on other agencies. Have promotions linked to either outstanding reporting or uncovering lies of other reporters. Whether a reporter gets promoted is reviewed by a random set of his peers that changes. Rotate who checks whom. Yes, I don't like all the potential back stabbing that is possible, but the truth is a precious thing, and it can be objectively proven. We need to do that.

    4) Agencies remain independent. If the associated board fails to act to stop bad reporting, then the recourse is for the town to hold a special election to replace the board.

    5) To prevent the emergence of a fox news town, provide a way for a set of independent agencies to basically declare an entire agency a failure. De-fund it and redeploy the resources elsewhere. This should be a high bar and not done easily. One possible indication of failure is if repeated surveys on common provable factual information reveal that the people that watch said news consistently believe lies, well that would mean they have been nicely indoctrinated by lies. Garbage in. Garbage out.

    6) Move people around somewhat. Make sure that you rotate different providers so that people see a range of viewpoints, or at least have them available during the most common news hour. When fact checking provide multiple links when possible. For instance, if say 3845 out of 3902 accredited news agencies say Trump is a liar, well people have no excuse if they believe the opposite.

    7) Make sure people know relevant details. What some con man tweets is not necessarily news worthy. His myriad conflict of interests and the sheer vastness of his lies are. The fact the vast majority of accredited news sources didn't endorse him is a relevant piece of news as well as why they didn't endorse him, and no it wasn't because they were all in the tank for Hillary.

    Now you can't entirely stop people from following non credible sources, but we can do our best to make sure credible reporting is supported. It is sort of like broccoli. If you put it in front of a kid, tell him it is good for him, and he still throws it on the floor and refuses to eat anything but french fries, well, if that is how our country ends, then so be it.

  52. War on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The War on Drugs was such a fantastic success.

  53. worse and worse by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1, Troll

    What's worse is when you think you can spot most of the propaganda and spin. Then you find the alt news sites that really have investigated the facts, collected evidence, and show the actual videos with analysis, and you realize how bad the propaganda problem really is. Basically we've been snookered for decades and generation, getting worse and worse.

  54. May you lead an interesting life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much you wanna bet she just loses again?

    You also don't realize that you've actually been outfoxed here and how this hurts your position for the next election. I won't be surprised if you run Hillary again in 2020 and double down on all the other failures.

    1. Re:May you lead an interesting life? by rholtzjr · · Score: 0

      Shhhhhh, this is how PopeRatzo copes with reality. Let's not try and burst the bubble yet. At least this will keep him going through the rest of the year.

  55. Rather than try to stop fake news... by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

    ...why not try to educate the public to the point that they can actually recognize it themselves?

    1. Re:Rather than try to stop fake news... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Because then they could also spot the fake news that we want to feed them. C'mon. An educated public could endanger our way or life.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  56. Another "war on..."? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    If it's going to be as successful as the war on drugs or the war on terror, it should provide a reliable pork barrel for the decades to come.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  57. Re:worst ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me guess, you majored in gender studies?

  58. Conspiracy theories by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    I have to admit when I started hearing about all of this "fake news" everywhere I was like here we go again... puppeteers pushing social memes so that when they "crack down" either electronically or legislatively they will have public cover for censorship.

    It certainly is no secret to anyone Russia has been targeting the west with propaganda campaigns for many years. Putin has made public statements gloating over ROI from such efforts. Neither is it news the Internet is chalk full of BS. What is so different today that warrants this "fake news" narrative to now be pushed so hard? Sore losers throwing tantrums over Drumpf win?

  59. Re:worst ones by tsotha · · Score: 1

    I doubt he graduated.

  60. Re:worst ones by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    > 1) Enough tax money to pay for many independent news agencies at various levels, local, state, etc.

    OPM (Other People's Money) You've just "self-identified" yourself as a lib-leftie.

    > 6) For instance, if say 3845 out of 3902 accredited news agencies say
    > Trump is a liar, well people have no excuse if they believe the opposite.

    If ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC gang up to tell everybody to vote for Clinton... oh wait.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  61. US government first target? by gravewax · · Score: 2

    Going after fake news? does this mean the US government will be attacking its own propaganda sites too? or is this just more hypocrisy where it is only everyone else that isn't allowed to create fake news?

  62. US government is the worst fake news offender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More anti-Russian propaganda - in itself fake news. Why do people post US propaganda here?

  63. Re: worst ones by coteriescavenger · · Score: 1

    For someone who has a problem with fake news, you watch a lot of CNN. CNN, ABC, and every other corporate media outlet, including Fox, boldly proved themselves to be pro institution censorship rings this election. It was so blatant, they will never get away with it. Though, the fact that some of you are still unaware months later, shows how much of a hold they had. That's a nice plan to try to make media accountable, but it will never work because the problem isn't with false reporting (false reporting loses viewers), it's with agenda reporting in the hands of a few elite agencies. You can't stop selective reporting, or creative wording. The solution to "fake news" and censorship is just to allow as many people to speak as possible. The internet is already solving that with alternative media. Unfortunately, the system is trying to stop it, but they're running out of brainwashed zombies to help them.

  64. how fucking braindead stupid by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

    How fucking braindead stupid do you have to fucking be to fucking do that?

    Have you read any news lately? Were you completely unaware of the misogynerd narrative?

    The lizard people told you to do it? Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. I AM SICK AND FUCKING TIRED OF THE GROUP PUNISHMENTS. YOU PEOPLE ARE DIPSHIT ASSHOLES.

    1. Re:how fucking braindead stupid by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      I've played around with Drupal 6 and 7. FUCK YOU DRUPAL. FUCK YOU. I AM NEVER TOUCHING THAT SHIT AGAIN. I AM UNINSTALLING THAT SHIT FROM MY TEST SERVER. I am fucking sick and tired of being punished for your shit because I was assigned the fucking dipshit braindead asshole gender at birth AGAINST MY FUCKING WILL.

      Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

  65. Didn't Fox News win court case about this? by suteny0r · · Score: 1

    Where they were being sued for knowingly broadcasting false stories? They eventually prevailed, the judge citing that they were entertainment rather than news, and weren't obliged to be truthful.

  66. Re:worst ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are all victims! Slashdot and other organizations are the victims of a cyber crime led by thugs.

  67. Heresy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    War on Fake News? .. War on Heresy, more like.

  68. What utter tripe by jandersen · · Score: 1

    It is really bizarre, the way fact checking and standing up to liars, fear mongers, hate speech has been twisted around so that it is now called "propaganda" and "censorship". I suppose we are fortunate in some ways - at least Trump's nasal whine doesn't evoke quite the same passion as Hitler, and I don't think they have a master manipulator like Goebbels yet. And unlike in Germany in the thirties, companies are not flocking to him as one; and we now have the internet, so perhaps there is hope that he won't get it all his way. But it is going to be grim for a while.

  69. you should not let government decide what is fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that is wrong on so many levels.

  70. Re:worst ones by Archtech · · Score: 1

    All mainstream media are fake news. All hail the trustworthy Fox News and Breitbart.

    Er, but aren't they mainstream too? Or is it just that you disagree with what you perceive to be their political alignment?

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  71. Re:worst ones by Archtech · · Score: 1

    Maybe that's because if they didn't life in a modern university would be intolerable? And they would never get tenure.

    As I recall, pretty well everyone in the USSR self-identified as a socialist too.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  72. Re:worst ones by Archtech · · Score: 1

    I protest your anti-Japanese racism!

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  73. Re:worst ones by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    OPM (Other People's Money) You've just "self-identified" yourself as a lib-leftie.

    As opposed to a rightie who loves to take OPM as you put it but refuses to talk about it in a sensible way or even admit to it? Red states receive on average considerably more federal money than blue ones. That makes republican voters net beneficiaries of "other people's money" more than democrat voters.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  74. I'd be more interested in locating real news.... by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    Care to explain which emails were fake? Because the last time someone did that they got educated in DKIM hashes, learned that yes, the DKIM hashes cover the body of the message, learned that there were actually multiple signatures on some of them, learned that the relevant keys were not revoked (and can still be found in DNS... as well as my post history, just in case), and essentially all the arguments were proven false thanks to the non-repudiation that DKIM offers.

    Or maybe you relied on when CNN lied to us to tell us it was illegal to read wikileaks, helping to hide how they rigged the debate?

    Or you think it takes state-level intelligence to hack Podesta when he fell for a stupid spear phishing scam claiming some random IP allegedly in the Ukraine had hacked in and followed the bit.ly link to reset his Gmail password? Which is doubly-odd because Google never said anything about Russian hackers targetting anyone and they do actually warn targets about state-sponsored attacks whenever possible (usually this is China, though).

  75. Re:worst ones by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    That's genuinely how people think in a post-truth world. They think that all politicians are liars, all media is biased and published fake news, all experts are either idiots or biased... So they just decide to believe people who tell them what they want to hear, without bothering to figure out if it is true or not because, if you didn't get it the first time, everything is a lie anyway.

    There is no truth, only that warm fuzzy feeling of having your existing views confirmed.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  76. Thanks Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US ramping up propaganda machine again? Thanks Trump!

  77. Re:I'd be more interested in locating real news... by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

    We're talking about different things. I'm talking about the Russian effort to spread fake news stories that fed into already existing bizarre conservative conspiracy theories.

  78. Re:worst ones by execthis · · Score: 1

    All hair the Queen!

  79. Re:worst ones by execthis · · Score: 1

    sore twisted loser

  80. That's like trusting theives with your gold by xtsigs · · Score: 2

    The Republican Climate Change deniers are passing a law regarding monitoring truth in news? These are the same guys that has recently earned headlines like House Science Committee Tweets Climate-Change Denying Breitbart Article.

    The are giving the power to "enforce" what is fake to an incoming president with about 70% of his statements rated from "mostly false" to "pants on fire" ( Donald Trump's file)?

    I started to write a novel around this concept a decade ago. My friends urged me to abandon the idea was it was too far fetched. "Not believable," they said. "Would never happen," they argued.

    I agreed that it was a silly idea.

    Damn.

    1. Re:That's like trusting theives with your gold by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      The initiative grows out of a bill authored in March by Portman and Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.,

    2. Re:That's like trusting theives with your gold by xtsigs · · Score: 1

      The initiative grows out of a bill authored in March by Portman and Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.,

      People so often forget that legal measures that seek to correct the error of the "other guy's" ways, will eventually be used against them. Hence, a constitution and form of government designed to protect people against nonsense like this. Many of the framers were quite concerned about an uneducated public with a right to vote taking the country in dangerous directions just because they didn't know any batter. In fact, William Penn wrote about this more than a century before the Continental Congress ratified the Constitution. By "uneducated," they did not mean illiterate. They were concerned about a society of people who were not sufficiently versed in the historical and political realities of the their decisions nor were trained in critical, analytical, and basic logic.

      The solution is not censorship or control of what we read. The solution is to educate our citizens on how to dig for facts, to think for themselves, and to create an environment that makes them want to do it.

      I've been accused of being an "elitist" for these views. I think that the true elitists are those who believe that the investment is not worthwhile because people are just not up to the task. I disagree. I've worked with young children of many different backgrounds. In general, the desire to learn, to understand, to discover meaning, to solve problems are all there. We say that our culture values such virtues, but then we poorly fund an educational system designed to knock those basic human drives out of our children as soon as possible.

      After decades of these policies, it is little wonder that we find ourselves in political and economic downward spirals.

  81. Re: worst ones by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    "Physician, heal thyself."

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  82. Re: worst ones by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Yet another butthurt millenial who thinks "they made a wrong prediction" = "everything they say is a lie".

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  83. Re: worst ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True statement

  84. Re: worst ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read a few of your comments and then I started understanding why you have "Mindless" in your name. If you cannot see that the big news organizations weren't singing in concert with the Clinton campaign most of the time then you really shouldn't drive because you're oblivious enough of your surroundings to be a hazard to the public.

  85. Only took 55 years or so... by mi · · Score: 1

    The Soviets have been fomenting internal strife in the US since, at least, 1961. But that was Ok, because their propaganda was helping the Leftist causes.

    Now that the Russians — in the mistaken belief, that Trump will be nicer to them than the alternative (of "Reset" fame) — chose to root for him, it is, suddenly, something, a government needs to fight. First Amendment be damned.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  86. Slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay so we are really giving trump the ability to I oversee and regulate news? Isn't the outcome of this a bit obvious?

  87. What ever happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To free speech?

  88. Re:No thx, this will just be add to the manipulati by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Not the FreeState nutter again.

    I'll just point out, as I've done before, that this boils down to, "We're all gonna move someplace where it's easy for us to take over, and fuck the locals and how they might feel about it."

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  89. Re:worst ones by khallow · · Score: 1

    1) Enough tax money to pay for many independent news agencies at various levels, local, state, etc.

    If it's paid for with tax money, it's not independent. Everything else you mentioned is window dressing and easily worked around. Let us also note here that if 3845 accredited news agencies say Trump is a liar and Fox News doesn't, then a lot of people are going to believe Fox News.

    Sorry, but there's a great deal of magic thinking here. Government, like any large, unaccountable bureaucracy would readily subvert such a massive program. As I see it, the biggest difference between today and such an alternative is that far less of my money is being squandered on bad media today.

  90. Show me the fake news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see all of this talk including talk about action regarding fake news, yet I have not seen any specific call outs in the news nor in discussion.

    Can someone here provide a crystal clear example of some fake news, and if its Russian generated can you provide evidence? And since our government is taking action it must be wide spread and a regular common problem so it would be even more convincing if there were multiple examples.

    Otherwise I'm going to have to continue to call bullshit.

    My theory is that now that most people do not trust the msm the man has lost the means to effectively promote and deliver domestic propaganda (fake news). In other words, most other people besides myself are calling bullshit too.

    Let's see some examples with links?

  91. Re:No thx, this will just be add to the manipulati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll just point out, as I've done before, that this boils down to, "We're all gonna move someplace where it's easy for us to take over, and fuck the locals and how they might feel about it."

    You should be welcoming instead of racist.

  92. Comet Ping Pong contributions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: There's NO denying them from Hillary Clinton, George Soros, President Obama & their entire crew - as far as what went on there? DISGUSTING & EVIL, take a look for yourselves, & tell me another one...

    * Each of them & more contributed 100's of 1,000s to a "pizza shop"? Please...

    APK

    P.S.=> Aleister Crowley would've been proud of them all (especially Abramovic) - but I, for one @ least, find them to be evil slime that abused children... apk

  93. Re: worst ones by coteriescavenger · · Score: 1

    No, not because they made a wrong prediction, because they've been caught taking tips from Hillary on which stories to air, and how to air them. Because they've been caught giving Hillary debate questions before the debates. Because they have so blatantly cut people off the air just as they started to talk about that and other important news that was surfacing about the election. CNN is finished when you figure how ignorant they kept you. Odd that you would assume I'm a millennial. Most people don't become conservative until they're old enough to have heard both sides of the story.

  94. One side, anyway by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    Well, they're funding a war on some fake news sites.

    One way to identify a fake news site: did they refer to Fidel Castro as a "leader" or "revolutionary" and not as a dictator?

    I'm guessing the NYT is not one of the sites they'll be gunning for.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  95. List of Fake news sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CNN
    FOX
    NPR
    ABC
    NBC
    CBS
    AP
    BBC

    I think that covers most f it.

  96. Freedom means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The freedom to be controlled and educated by pro-government propaganda instead of having to sit and sort through ideas yourself.

  97. Re:worst ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea... because Europe is such a great example of how to set up an economic system that doesn't requires periodic bailouts during the few decades it has been around. You really miss the point of why weaker economies will take in more 'aid' than stronger ones. Germany v Greece and California v Alabama. Don't want that to happen, take away taxes and the aid.

    Seriously, the EU has only been around a few decades and are starting to fall apart when it was modeled on a US type economic model (freedom of movement, single currency, etc). The problem is that the EU doesn't have the federal government to help the weaker economies without a Grexit type event. Which system is more stable?

    Idiot.

  98. Boomerang by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Just about every word that falls out of Trump's vile mouth is fake news. How about the news when he said he would release his tax returns as soon as the audit was done? And just why can he not release his tax returns from past years that are not under audit? One reason is that if we can see his tax returns we may see illegal profits being given him by foreign powers. So let's apply those fake news stories to Trump and his ilk.

  99. Propaganda by middlebass · · Score: 1

    When I turned 16 in 1962 I spent some of the first money from my first job on a shortwave radio and discovered Radio Moscow. Most of what they broadcast was pure propaganda, but it did teach me that in some areas, other points of view were valid. The U.S. government did nothing to stop it in 1962, and now it wants to spend $160 million over two years. I could see spending money to make it harder to find ISIS sites, but Russian fake news is in a different category. Maybe it really does pose more of a danger than ISIS sites, but it's a very different kind of danger. The only thing clear is that propaganda can't be stopped. It's just a matter of degree.

  100. Re:worst ones by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    "there is no truth, only that warm fuzzy feeling"

    Isn't that more of a byproduct of postmodernism? Seriously, it is the academic equivalent of 'there is no truth, only warm fuzzy feelings' that has many advocates in all levels of academia pushing 'feels before reals'.

    I am sorry, but 'fake news' has always been around. Social media allowed a boon by giving independent voices ability to reach more people. It didn't help that MSM (all of it) told a thousand little lies to promote a narrative. Is 'Hands up Don't Shoot' fake news? How many times do you see a 'Hands up Don't Shoot' narrative pushing little lie and start questioning how many other stories were lied about? How many little lies and narrative pushings does it take for an average person to reject that source of information? It is not an irrational thing to do unless you think that 'authoritative' sources gain their authority by some other means than telling the truth.

    Experts calling people idiots that don't toe the line is why people stop listening to experts. Pundits and politicians calling everyone names is why people stopped listening to pundits and politicians because when people find out that the pundits and politicians were narrative crafting they stop listening. It is not an irrational thing to do.

  101. Re:worst ones by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    "Hands up, don't shoot" was reported as a witness statement. Not untrue at all, that's what the witnesses claimed was said.

    It's quite different to deliberately making up fake news to get clicks or mislead people.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  102. Re:I'd be more interested in locating real news... by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    You mean the ones that are today on Slashdot as more fake news that the WaPo got hit by? :) Where the project listed "partners" that had never even heard of it? The clickbait sites that nobody actually seems to have believed?

    https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/12/04/0050250/are-we-seeing-propaganda-about-russian-propaganda

  103. Re:worst ones by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    Even when the eye witness testimony was found to be false and questionable to begin with, it was still pushed by media as the correct narrative through bastardized virtue signals. It is not the only instance were the narrative is more important than reporting the facts. It is rational to disregard sources that continually lie and misconstrue the truth whether that be through omission, one side representation, virtue signaling, ideological pandering, or narrative crafting at the expense of the evidence. It isn't one instance of poor journalism that creates distrust to news outlets. It's the continuous diarrhea of poor journalism that suits a narrative at the expense of facts and objective reasoning. Fake news has always been around. The only difference today is that MSM lost legitimacy and authority they had because they abandoned journalistic integrity and they have to compete with other snake oil salesmen.

  104. Re:worst ones by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    Well, okay, let's do as you suggest. The ultimate ad-hominem, reject all media because it's been found to be inaccurate. Mainstream, non-mainstream alike, because it's not like Breitbart or Reddit are any better.

    Now what? How do we know anything about anything happening beyond our immediate vicinity?

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  105. well, that's better than what many other people do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's stunning to see how many people get their "news" from Facebook, Comedy Central, jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel, Steven Colbert, etc.

    The really whacko part is that people who think Jon Stewart was giving them honest news or who think Trevor Noah is being straight with them or who get their news from HuffPo are very often convinced they are the best-informed and most-enlightened people in the room! Discussing any important subject with such people is like trying to have a coherent conversation with a drug user - the person you are speaking with is completely delusional and uninformed, yet has sabotaged his own intellectual capacity and thus does not even know how screwed-up he is.

  106. seek medical help, quickly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You claim certainty that Trump is "...ridiculously unprepared and still doesn't really understand what the job entails." but there is a bit of reality you and others like you still have not yet faced:

    Barack Obama had never done a productive thing in his life when elected President. He had an admitted history of cocaine addiction and pot use and generally avoiding the real world - just read his own books or listen to him read them in his own words in audio book form. This drug-addled "community organizer" with ZERO experience in ANY economic/military/diplomatic field managed to get elected president on a mountain of celebrity hype, vague promises of "hope and change" and the desire by many to elect SOMEBODY (Anybody!!!) non-white to the office. He's "cool", he's snarky, he's obnoxious towards his opponents, and .... that's it. Barack Obama's presidency has utterly erased the concept that there is such a thing as a qualification to be president other than being 35 years old and getting enough votes. Your comment that Trump does not "act" presidential is similarly delusional given that Obama has never acted presidential... the moron spent more time dancing on Ellen, sitting "between two ferns", getting interviewed by a blogger famous for bathing in cherios and milk, and so-on.

    Democrats destroyed that whole "act presidential" thing when they cheered their dirtbag president Bill Clinton for going on TV with Arsenio Hall to play the saxaphone and discuss his underwear preferences.

    Everybody has their opinions about whether Trump is good/evil, right/left (Lots of Republicans fear he is too liberal and Democrat-aligned), etc but the simple fact is that the man is far more qualified to be CEO of the US (The President is the top executive job in the US government, the head of the executive branch) than Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and George Bush COMBINED. Trump has been successfully running a multi-billion dollar international corporation through about 40 years of economic ups and downs and shifting legal sands and even across shifting international lines. He has employed tens of thousands of people around the world and has hired and fired, promoted and overseen and monitored hundreds of managers of his many sub units of his vast holdings and has probably more experience in managing a team that manages a complex, hierarchical, distributed entity than ANY US President since Eisenhower. Trump may or may not have the right agenda, right policies, etc but the one thing he is NOT is less prepared than any other candidate of the past 20 years.

    1. Re:seek medical help, quickly by quantaman · · Score: 4, Informative

      You claim certainty that Trump is "...ridiculously unprepared and still doesn't really understand what the job entails." but there is a bit of reality you and others like you still have not yet faced:

      Barack Obama had never done a productive thing in his life when elected President.

      He had a good academic career, many years of experience as a State Legislator, almost 4 years as a US Senator, and was clearly competent and obviously had a strong grasp of policy.

      Still he didn't have sufficient Federal experience and paid for it in his first couple years in office.

      Everybody has their opinions about whether Trump is good/evil, right/left (Lots of Republicans fear he is too liberal and Democrat-aligned), etc but the simple fact is that the man is far more qualified to be CEO of the US (The President is the top executive job in the US government, the head of the executive branch)

      CEO is a very different position than President.

      than Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and George Bush COMBINED. Trump has been successfully running a multi-billion dollar international corporation through about 40 years of economic ups and downs and shifting legal sands and even across shifting international lines. He has employed tens of thousands of people around the world and has hired and fired, promoted and overseen and monitored hundreds of managers of his many sub units of his vast holdings and has probably more experience in managing a team that manages a complex, hierarchical, distributed entity than ANY US President since Eisenhower.

      He's mostly a franchise at this point, licensing his name to other groups to throw on hotels. When he manages things himself bankruptcies and unpaid bills are a typical outcome.

      I suspect he's pretty good at real estate, and he may do a decent job of managing his organization, but his chaotic disorganized campaign was a common story line during the election, the most obvious evidence being the two campaign managers he fired and turfing the entire transition team several days after winning.

      His managerial abilities are clearly not universally awesome.

      He was also caught out many times simply not understanding fairly basic things about different policy areas, what the POTUS did, or even what the constitution said.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  107. When will the left learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you make it OK for the government to wantonly infringe PLAIN TEXT of the 2nd, 4th, 5th, or 10th Amendments, pretending that Engilsh is just too complex to be properly understood, or that modern society has become too complex for the quaint Constitution and we must "move on", then there is ZERO reason to not also tolerate the flagrant subversion of the 1st Amendment too, for the greater good, of course...

    We have grown our government to monstrous proportions - only made possible by ignoring the plain text of the 10th Amendment. Having made government so big, we have injected it into EVERYTHING and it has become quite intrusive. That government now thinks it has the right to trash the 4th and 5th Amendments. This has all been embraced by the left for entirely too long as they viewed the government as a hammer they could use to re-forge society and hammer home all their values and ideas and policies.... but that's not a safe path to trod. The US Government was not designed to be used that way, and when you get the politicians and the courts to join together in an intellectual suicide pact where they all agree to not obey the Constitution things are not likely to end well.

  108. The BIGGER Elephant in the room is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That all federal agencies are run by the chief executive and his management team.... which will be the Trump administration starting in late January.

    What sort of IDIOT who is concerned that Trump might have been elected in part by an assist from"fake news" from Russia would erect a new federal entity to control "fake news" and then put it into Trump's hands???????

    Oh, yeah... stupid moron politicians in Washington DC.

    Let's face it: the stupid click-baitey fake news stories on so many web sites these days probably had little influence and the biggest "fake news" of 2016 was probably all the "weighted" polling that was run as "news" that ran through the entire year on nearly EVERY news outlet and the secondary "news" of all the "experts" editorializing with one gigantic theme - that Hillary was going to be the next President and Trump could not win. We need to fix THAT problem with the supposedly real news before worrying about some stupid clickbait.

  109. Re:worst ones by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    You, as a free agent, have the responsibility to inform your vote to clear your conscience and understand that everyone is trying to convince you of something. You should promote critical thinking and civic responsibility instead of evangelizing the 'fake news' i.e. propaganda in the 21st century. The methods by which it spreads has changed but that does not change propagandas potential to influence the real world. Fake news has always been around we just called it different things. We were able to overcome those problems then as we will today. We are not special or unique with the difficulties of civilized society just because we communicate faster.

  110. Tumonia by aberglas · · Score: 1

    "United States of America" is a horribly long name, almost as bad as USSR. It should be renamed "Trumponia".

    "Tumponia" summarizes the true essence of the country. It is the place that elected Trump. In 100 years time American robots will be proud of the moment when Tumponia became great.

  111. Re: worst ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We were able to overcome those problems then as we will today.

    Only if by "able to overcome" you mean being bamboozled and deceived by it, to the point of multiple wars and other tragedies.

  112. Re:worst ones by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    Okay, but if every source of information about the world beyond your immediate ken is unreliable and must be rejected, how can you possible be informed about the world?

    That was my point really. No media outlet is perfect, but some are clearly better than others. Obviously you should still be sceptical, but just because CNN isn't perfect doesn't mean you need to run to Breitbart instead. The latter is 90% bullshit, people just like it because it happens to align with their prejudices.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  113. Uh, you've already elected Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Russians have already hit the jackpot. Trump is a decapitation strike. You are effectively rudderless for at least four years. Haha

  114. Obama wants double-secret probation! by spkay31 · · Score: 1

    Double secret probation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  115. IKR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter. Ever since I was a boy I dreamed of soaring over the oilfields dropping hot sticky loads on disgusting foreigners. People say to me that a person being a helicopter is Impossible and I’m fucking retarded but I don’t care, I’m beautiful. I’m having a plastic surgeon install rotary blades, 30 mm cannons and AMG-114 Hellfire missiles on my body. From now on I want you guys to call me “Apache” and respect my right to kill from above and kill needlessly. If you can’t accept me you’re a heliphobe and need to check your vehicle privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.