Google Bans 200 Publishers From Its Ad Network (recode.net)

Since it passed a new policy against fake news, Google has banned 200 publishers from its AdSense network, an ad placement service that automatically serves text and display ads on participating sites based on its audience. "The ban was part of an update to an existing policy that prohibits sites that mislead users with their content," reports Recode. From the report: Not all 200 publishers were swept up as part of the effort to root out fake news sites. Publishers were banned in November and December and included sites that impersonate real news organizations through shortened top-level domains, according to Google's 2016 "bad ads" report, normally released at the beginning of each year. So-called fake news publishers will sometimes take advantage of ".co" domains by appearing similar to legitimate news sites that would normally end in ".com." Google declined to provide a listing of the banned sites. Separately, the annual report on violations of advertising policy also included data on ads removed by Google. The company reported that in 2016 it took down 1.7 billion ads for violations, compared to 780 million in 2015. Google attributes the increase in ad removals to a combination of advertiser behavior and improvements in technology to detect offending ads. Also among those the removed ads were what Google calls "tabloid cloakers." These advertisers run what look like links to news headlines, but when the user clicks, an ad for a product such as a weight loss supplement pops up. Google suspended 1,300 accounts engaged in tabloid cloaking in 2016.

Comments

CNN?

[frovingslosh]

But did they get the worst fake news sites like CNN, NBC and Huffington Post? How about Faux News?

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

rofl

Re:CNN?

[lewistown]

Non of those are quite as bad or bias as Breitbart, and it comes up in Google news results...

Re:CNN?

[dejitaru]

Sadly i'm afraid this might be an issue as many large news companies tend to report on things they find on other sites, including sites that report fake news :/

Re:CNN?

[ClickOnThis]

But did they get the worst fake news sites like CNN, NBC and Huffington Post? How about Faux News?

To be sure, all of these sites occasionally (or even frequently) show bias in their reporting. But none of them are blatant purveyors of fake news.

Fake news is a deliberate fiction, written with the intent to deceive, frighten, or anger the reader. It is not the same as news written with a bias, or even news reported in good faith, but with errors.

Re:CNN?

[rmdingler]

Non of those are quite as bad or bias as Breitbart, and it comes up in Google news results...

(FD: I run an Adblocker.) I don't get the Breitbart.

But still, I don't get the Breitbart.

Re:CNN?

[elrous0]

CNN is every bit as biased as Breitbart, they just dress it up better and hide their yellow journalism behind third-party sources:

Breitbart headline: Hillary Clinton Tied to Pedophile Ring
CNN Headline: Sources Accuse Donald Trump of Rape, Pedophilia

The difference is trivial. Every news source is biased these days, and every reporter has an agenda. The vast majority are liberal. Some are conservative. But you're not getting the straight story out of either.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

>The difference is trivial

Do you honestly believe that the pussy grabber being accused of sexual abuse is the same as an easily disproved hoax?

Just so you know, saying that because they both CNN and Bretbart are biased means that they are both equally disingenuous is laughable.

Re:CNN?

[DogDude]

That's bullshit. Those aren't remotely similar.

And your bullshit about "every source being biased" is more bullshit that you pulled out of your ass. There's good journalism, and there's bad. Breitbart is most definitely, bad journalism, if it can be called journalism at all. CNN isn't the best, but they're a hell of a lot better than Breitbart.

Re:CNN?

[Ol Olsoc]

Sadly i'm afraid this might be an issue as many large news companies tend to report on things they find on other sites, including sites that report fake news :/

Let's ignore obviously fake news for a moment, and just go with regular news.

There is a lot of news happening in the world, every day. Just the very act of deciding what to report is going to show the news agency/reporter's bias.

There is no such thing as an unbiased news source.

So what one has to do, is pay some attention to what you are reading or seeing. The aggregate of the news presented will let you know, and getting more than one source is also a big help. But then there is confirmation bias. Which both Liberal and what passes for conservative today is stricken with. So of all of the new providers today, I tend to get most of mine from NPR. They have somewhat of a liberal bias, but nowhere near the CNN/MSNBC outlook, and definitely not Fox with it's pseudo conservatism outlook. But perhaps unlike most people today, if I hear a story that annoys me, It doesn't drive me crazy like the confirmation addicted crowd demands of their affirmation news.

So we just need to pay attention.

Re:CNN?

[Tim the Gecko]

"Does waterboarding work? Seven questions about the controversial interrogation technique" More fear mongering anyone?

Here's Mr Trump saying "absolutely I feel it works" a few hours ago - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

Fears that it will be used again are legitimate.

Re:CNN?

[frovingslosh]

Bad journalism = I don't agree with what they say.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both stories are bullshit, you partisan idiot. Neither candidate is a rapist or pedophile. The fact that it's become the norm to accuse both of the major candidates of the vilest of crimes just shows how ugly political discourse has become. And the fact that even "reputable" news sources routinely parrot this garbage also shows how broken the press is in the U.S. too.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

And where were all the Washington Post stories during the eight years that Obama was using it too?

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

The next question he was asked was "Would you do it?". His answer was "I'll only do what's legal".

Nice try though.

Re:CNN?

[DRJlaw]

Both stories are bullshit, you partisan idiot.

Indeed. One story is merely backed by a voice recording of the perpetrator, who quickly gave up upon even denying the words and instead argued that he was being hypothetical.

Who could possibly believe such bullshit... surely not I. /s

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Washington Post then?

Re:CNN?

[dugancent]

"Without evidence, Trump tells lawmakers 3 million to 5 million illegal ballots cost him the popular vote"
Of course there's no evidence that there wasn't voter fraud - Democrats have fought every attempt to investigate it

It's up to Trump to prove that there is. There is no responsibility for the "other side" to prove anything.

The accuser provides the proof.

Re: CNN?

[hey!]

Obama banned waterboarding on his second day in office (executive order 13491).

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody lacks any kind of basic intelligence (In case you are not getting it ... it is YOU)

It is really funny that this day and age somebody is so stupid that he/she can't differentiate between two stories about completely different topics.

Re:CNN?

[bongey]

Huffington Post is many times worse than Breitbart, Huffing Post had a headline "WTF FBI" , there hasn't been a time Breitbart has cussed out a federal agency or person.
http://web.archive.org/web/201...

https://www.google.com/search?... , notice all are from people saying WTF . Funny one is Obama used Win the Future.

Re:CNN?

[dejitaru]

Sadly a lot of people don't understand that you should take everything you read/hear/watch with a grain of salt, they tend to focus on news that fits their own opinion on things and disregard any counter report or such.

Re:CNN?

[brewthatistrue]

From the article:

"Google declined to provide a listing of the banned sites."

http://www.recode.net/2017/1/2...

Re: CNN?

[orlanz]

The confirmation bias is strong in this one!

Re: CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol I came here prepared to ask the same question. Good to know there other free thinkers, and libtards are living in 1984 n1ggertopia.

Re:CNN?

[Camel Pilot]

Go look at the list of headlines and Breitbart and then CNN and tell which is more biased! Breitbart is the DJT Cult of Personality worshipping channel. Go read the commenters that follow the red meat stories one after another... These people are still angry about having a black person in authority that theey would gladly lead the US into fascism and tyranny

Re:CNN?

[Sartr]

Everyone who disagrees with us Tolerant Liberals is a racist bigot Hitler monster. How do you fucking idiots still not learn your lesson after being Trumped so hard?

Re: CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

And he allowed the use of torture two years later just before the Osama Bin Laden raid. No one has said what techniques they used, but no one denied the use of waterboarding and resented that Obama approved of what they did in secret after 2009 until the raid was complete.

Re:CNN?

[publiclurker]

if you actually believe that then you should perhaps leave and let the adults get on with their conversation.

Re: CNN?

[hey!]

Zero Dark Thirty was a work of fiction.

Re:CNN?

[frovingslosh]

I believe that is what most of the liberals think, including the person who the post was in response to. They reserve the terms bad journalism and fake news for whatever they don't like, and make excuses when the left leaning "journalists" are caught abusing their position.

Re:CNN?

[Ol Olsoc]

Sadly a lot of people don't understand that you should take everything you read/hear/watch with a grain of salt, they tend to focus on news that fits their own opinion on things and disregard any counter report or such.

Absolutely. You can make a pretty good guess of what a person watches if you talk to them for 10 minutes.

Re:CNN?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Fake news is a deliberate fiction, written with the intent to deceive, frighten, or anger the reader. It is not the same as news written with a bias, or even news reported in good faith, but with errors.

THIS. The word "fake" has undergone a redefinition (mostly by conservatives, but now also used by liberals) in the past couple months. In normal everyday English in other circcircumstances, the word "fake" has a clear meaning: something deliberately (and knowingly) fabricated to pretend to be true/accurate/genuine when it's not. Hence "fake ID" or "fake Rolex" or whatever. When you show a bouncer a "fake ID" to try to get into a bar, it doesn't mean you accidentally showed them someone else's ID or unintentionally tried to pass off an invalid one or something. It means you deliberately tried to pass off an ID you knew was manufactured as false.

The fake news folks have themselves fought back by trying to redefine the English word "fake" to mean "biased" or "unintentionally erroneous". But that's NOT what the word means. They're trying to distract you from the actual fabricated "news" out there... Which is a real problem.

Re:CNN?

[CrashNBrn]

Fake news is a deliberate fiction, written with the intent to deceive, frighten, or anger the reader.

I take it you've never heard Megyn Kelly open her mouth on Fox News then.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN isn't the best, but they're a hell of a lot better than Breitbart.

No they're not. And I'm not even defending Breitbart here. CNN just aren't much if at all better.

CNN still give -- for now -- the appearance of responsible and reliable journalism. You look at a well edited, special effects laden, 24/7 cable news broadcast and you can't help but think that there must be teams of dozens behind the scenes tirelessly fact-checking, copy-editing, digging, editing, and verifying so that you the viewer get nothing but the best. CNN are certainly in no hurry to dismiss this good first impression.

But scratch under the surface and the glossy coating reveals itself to be paper thin. Since the beginning, CNN did little more than broadcast AP news feeds on television, doing little in house reporting or journalism itself. Nowadays, with the collapse of investagative reporting an faact-checking in the media generally, CNN like most is forced to rely on ever cheaper and less reliable sources of information to pad out its 24 hour news cycle. Blogs, tweets, frickin' reddit posts all used directly as sources, or more commonly, were used as sources, by the sources, by the sources, that CNN used as a source.

These days misinformation and fakes news takes a typical life-cycle:
Begin as a tweet/post/email somewhere on the wild, wild, web ;
Get picked up by a part-time blogger or small speciality news/trade blog (this is often the one and only time the story gets any "journalistic" scrutiny whatsoever) ;
Get re-picked up from the smaller blogs by a larger blog come news site like Gawker, Breitbart, Huffington Post, etc;
From here, if the story takes, get picked up by online editions of traditional outlets like CNN, the Guardian, BBC, etc;
One short hop and a "slow" news days gets you on the CNN ticker or even right there on air in your very own segment;

The only remaining step now is to get on the print edition of the likes of the New York Times or Washington Post, etc, who do have some reputation to consider before publishing. Though, as evidenced by recent scandals, fact-checking and general bullshit detection at even these former pillars of journalism is also in steep, possibly terminal decline.

In the middle -- and beginning and end -- of this entire process is the Internet and the effect it has had on media revenue over the last 20 years. In particular, there stands Google, like a Colossus, now deciding just who in this Ceremony of Bullshit Anointment is or is not worthy of the Grace of ad-sense based revenue. While some may speak of a market based solution, I tend to think giving mega-corporations leverage like this over what's left of the 4th estate is less than likely to lead us back to the promised land of milk and independent journalism.

Re:CNN?

[dwillden]

None of them are blatant purveyors, such as when CNN picked up and ran with the Golden Showers article from 4Chan? Nope, no fake news there.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whining crybaby: "I don't agree with what they say, so they are lying!"

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither candidate is a rapist or pedophile. The fact that it's become the norm to accuse both of the major candidates of the vilest of crimes just shows how ugly political discourse has become..

Isn't that libel/slander, which is something they can be sued for?

Re:CNN?

[AmiMoJo]

Some researchers in the UK have been looking at ways to "vaccinate" people against fake news by exposing them to little bits of it in order to make them more skeptical. Maybe mainstream news sites should start doing that. Throw in the odd click-bait fake story, and everything other than the headline is just "THIS IS FAKE NEWS" repeated over and over. People will get that little rush as the read the headline confirming their beliefs, and then the little conditioning shock as they realize it's fake, and be more likely to question stuff in the future to avoid the discomfort.

Re:CNN?

[AmiMoJo]

It depends what you search for. Breitbart coming top of the search results is usually a good indicator that the story is fake, because more reputable and popular sites are not also carrying it.

Unfortunately some people see it as evidence that the news was suppressed and only Brietbart carried it, but I've never found a single instance of that being the case.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, bullshit. People like you can't seem cope with the idea that some journalism is better than other journalism. Sometimes by a lot. Perhaps you're just trying to rationalize your own inability to think deeply.

Bad journalism (and spam and most advertising and sociopaths and propaganda) = written to benefit the writer.

Good journalism = written by an informed and literate person to benefit the reader.

Re:CNN?

[AmiMoJo]

Claiming everything is biased is very dangerous. Sure, it's impossible to completely eliminate bias, but the intention of repeating this claim is to make people accept "alternate facts" as equally valid as facts and reputable reporting.

Re:CNN?

[FyRE666]

Yes, AC, it is... I'm laughing at you, in case "you are not getting it" :)

Re:CNN?

[rmdingler]

Did you know? The Huffington Post is a left-leaning American online news aggregator and blog that has both localized and international editions

founded by Arianna Huffington, Kenneth Lerer, Jonah Peretti, and Andrew Breitbart... yep, same Breitbart.

Re:CNN?

[DRJlaw]

But I don't believe such bullshit. It's really funny that you're so stupid that you can't understand the words that I wrote, and instead substitute your own bullshit.

I can gaslight too...

Re:CNN?

[Duds]

Brietbart is not "disagreement", it's fiction.

If you want a left wing version of Brietbart you'd be looking for something a lot more like The Canary.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone who disagrees with us Tolerant Liberals is a racist bigot Hitler monster. How do you fucking idiots still not learn your lesson after being Trumped so hard?

Nobody on the right wants them to learn the lesson. The left has no where to go, no more radical words to use, they have used them all. The more they try, the more ridiculous, ineffectual, and unelectable they become.

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Mid-term elections are going to be the moment of truth one way or another. I suspect the left won't wise up fast enough.

So be it.

Re:CNN?

[silentcoder]

Cussing out a federal agency or not is not a measurement of degree of bias. It is merely indicative of a key difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives tend to respect authority, it's considered a key value to them. Liberals tend to question and be critical of authority.

There are a number of such key value differences between conservatives and liberals - and strong science to back up that concept.
Conservatives tend to value in-group loyalty extremely highly. Hence conservatives tend to be anti-immigrant and generally don't mix much with people of different cultures or values or ethnicities. They say things like "take care of our own first".
Liberals on the other hand tend to attach almost no value whatsoever to in-group loyalty, it's just not a value they care about. So they'll form their social groups across any and all lines, they'll care equally for a sick child of a neighbour or the sick child of an immigrant - they don't see a difference.

Conservatives are, in general, far more anxious than liberals - they simply are more afraid (so the whole "snowflake" and "safe space" thing is doubly-stupid) - and you can see that in the way so many conservative arguments are framed around "the threat". Conservatives argue we can't save millions of refugee lives because a few of the refugees may be terrorist - but even if we deem these the most astoundingly wonderfully effective terrorists in history, and assume they can kill thousands - that doesn't make any sense to a liberal. The threat is tiny, so they don't focus on it - and besides the outcome even if the threat happens isn't that bad to them - since they don't value in-group loyalty that much the cannot consider "a thousand of our own" to be a greater loss than "millions of them". To a liberal - there is no "ours" or "them".

https://www.ted.com/talks/jona...

These are differences in fundamental morality. Note - not in LEVEL of morality. Both groups are highly moral - and indeed both believe the other to be entirely IMMORAL - but that's because the moral values they subscribe to are completely different.
So yeah, cussing out the FBI is not a big deal for a liberal - if they did something WTF-worthy then they deserve to get WTF'd. To a conservative it goes against that deep respect for authority moral - and so seems like a huge deal. Breitbart wouldn't run that because their readership would be offended. This is key to understanding the birther movement. Why was it so important to them to try and prove Obama was not a legitimate president - why would they cling to such an obvious piece of bullshit ? Because resisting the greatest authority in the land, despising him as much as they wanted to - well that goes against their morality, the only way to square the circle was to convince themselves his authority was not legitimate. You can see the inverse of the same process happening right now as Trump flat-out lies about crowd-sizes and TV-ratings, and denies having lost the popular vote on utterly spurious grounds. Why would he CARE ? He's president, the highest authority in the land. He won the election and he was inaugurated - why wouldn't he just be happy - why make such a big deal of those things ? Because he helped plant the seed that respect for authority only applies to legitimate authority, and anything that calls even the slightest question over the legitimacy of his authority (and certainly over the degree of mandate he got from voters) is perceived as a very real threat to him. He cannot imagine that anybody would obey him in anything if they think his authority is not absolutely 100% legitimate and mandated. Which is doubly quixotic fear because frankly the people who are resisting him couldn't care less. They would be resisting just as much if he HAD won the popular vote. They care about WHAT he is doing - they question authority, they don't respect it by default and how legitimate it is doesn't enter into the equation at all. The only reason they keep bringing it up is because of how nicely it gets under his skin.

So no, the cussing is entirely unrelated to the degree of bias - it's merely indicative of the moral differences between the target audiences.

Re:CNN?

[operagost]

Trump boasting that he could fondle women and get away with it isn't an admission of rape, you moron. If a bomb goes off in the White House, are you going to arrest Madonna for it?

Re:CNN?

[silentcoder]

Except that there WAS sexual assault charges pending against Trump at the time of the election - that was news, reporting that charges were pending was reporting a fact viewers had a right to know. There were dozens of credible accusations from women who were not pressing charges as well - that too was news, these women knew Trump - had real histories - reporting the accusations was news.

Reporting an easily disproven hoax on the other hand is blatant propaganda. CNN never said Trump was a rapist. They reported the TRUTH: lots of women accuse him of sexual misconduct. Breitbart reprinted a hoax about a non-existent pedophile ring without any reason whatsoever to think it's true - no victim, no accuser - they printed an accusation without an accuser ! That is insane.

Re:CNN?

[clarkholmes]

I wish I had a mod point. This is a really interesting take on the differences in the mindsets, and one that I had noticed, but never quantified. Nice comment.

Re:CNN?

[silentcoder]

No, we reserve it for sources who don't follow standard editorial practise, where MOST stories are flagrant lies that can easily be disproven. Nobody is saying mainstream media never prints wrong stories, never makes mistake and doesn't sometimes just plain lie - but it's rare because of a strong construct of editorial practises that rule out the majority of fuckups before they get to print.
We reserve "fake news" for sources that don't follow those practises and print anything that appeals to their political agenda.

Look how many flagrant lies were made up about Clinton. Even Pizzagate. Now where is the lies about Trump ? He DID say those things to Billy Bush - we HEARD him on the tape. We have PROOF.
And that DOES make the women who accused him of it more believable.

We didn't NEED to make up fake news about Donald Trump - he was quite capable of saying and doing things all by himself that ought to make any decent person drop out of a race !

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fears that it will be used again are legitimate.

Too bad you don't have any fears about it being used, and just are saying so for political posturing.

And no need to follow up with some fake outrage about what I said. I said you have no personal fears regarding this. This a fact, and is mentioned as symptomatic of a Left that thinks they can rule the world with some mildly-clever wordplay manipulation, in lieu of any actual useful plan.

Re:CNN?

[gnick]

Trump boasting that he could fondle women and get away with it isn't an admission of rape, you moron.

I guess you've got him there - It's an admission of sexual assault, not rape.

If a bomb goes off in the White House, are you going to arrest Madonna for it?

Huh? That's not even remotely equivalent. If the White House got bombed, there was a reasonable chance that Madonna did it, and then she bragged about getting away with it then arresting her would be a fine idea. That's hardly the case.

Re:CNN?

[gnick]

Bad journalism = I don't agree with what they say.

Bad journalism = I don't believe what they say.
Opinions be damned - We have facts getting mangled.

Re:CNN?

[bangular]

I heard a story on NPR categorizing misleading and untrue news into four categories (which I agree with). Each of these four are often called "fake news" these days but it's obvious only one is.

(1) True fake news. News that has no basis at all and is created to be spread on social media to make ad dollars. These are things like pizza-gate and "pope endorsing trump."

(2) Click bait. The story may be true or somewhat true but headline extremely misleading.

(3) Satire. The onion.

(4) News that contains facts but they are out of context and many other important facts are omitted to promote a narrative.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN never ran the golden showers report. Nice try.

Re:CNN?

[Alioth]

I always thought the Huffington Post was a paper from a town called Huffington that just happened to get famous. Then I find out it was someone called Huffington wanting a vanity project.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice analysis, though politics rarely falls into clean conceptual bifurcations.

I suggest a big part of Trump's sensitivities to public opinion are because he is in essence a Conservative -salesman-, and public perception of him is crucial to his past and future effectiveness.

A Conservative from a different background and personally-conceived justifications for their stances, say, a Conservative influenced by Ayn Rand or other Right-leaning philosophers, would be quite different on the "popularity" question.

Witness the difference between Trump and Paul Ryan, for example, in terms of their whole political demeanor and approach to opposition.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because a few fat ugly women wanted to make a buck off a celebrity by pretending they were touched (show me on the doll snowflake!) doesn't make it so. I believe that our PRESIDENT deserves at least a little bit of the benefit of the doubt.

You #NeverTrump people make me sick.

Re:CNN?

[Grishnakh]

Exactly. The problem is that the right-wing stuff is a mix of 1, 2, and 4, while the "mainstream news" these days has a whole lot of 2 and 4. So when left-leaners talk about "fake news" on the right where they're really talking mostly about #1, the right-wingers respond but fail to recognize that the mainstream/left stuff is devoid of #1, but the 2 and 4 stuff still makes that side look bad.

Re:CNN?

[Quirkz]

Interesting post. I'd heard/recognized some of this, but not all of those details at the same time.

One thing you didn't mention explicitly, though maybe it correlates to your comments about in-group and threat, is that conservatives seem to find the idea of people getting things they don't deserve more objectionable. For instance, they're more likely to see a system like welfare not worth it because of scammers and cheaters, despite it also helping some truly needy, while liberals would be more likely to shrug off the cheating as an unavoidable side-effect, and focus on the benefits to those who need it.

Re:CNN?

[AnalogDiehard]

The other problem is news outlets reporting only part of the story or not reporting at all through indifference.

Where I live, there are two newspapers. One is blatantly liberal and the other is balanced. Many times I will see the same story or editorial appear in both papers, but the liberal one had omitted some crucial details which altered the context of the story. That is subtle but dangerous.

Then there are the news events that are not getting reported. A good example is the gun control agenda of news outlets. There have been many cases of gun violence (home invasion, attempted mass shooting, etc) that have been thwarted by a good guy with legal possession of a gun. And government and university studies that prove that violent crimes increases in cities/countries with gun control laws (not just the US). The news outlets won't report these stories because it would nullify their gun control agenda.

These are just as dangerous as fake news.

Re: CNN?

[silentcoder]

I think in-group loyalty is a big part, but there are more. Conservative respect for authority includes tradition and they habe a strong moral value around sexual purity (one liberals also do not share).
Then they see welfae going out indiscriminately so "others" get it (goes against in-group loyalty), people who violate their sexual purity values (such as gay or transgender people) get it... and worst if all single mothers get it, and get more than most ! That is rewarding promiscuous black women for their premarital sex !

Now I do not agree with any of this stuff... but I can see how, if you consider group loyalty and sexual purity to be key moral values, welfare could appear to you to be promoting immorality (it doesn't it just refuses to punish individuals for having broken communities).

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mid-term elections are going to be the moment of truth one way or another. I suspect the left won't wise up fast enough.

If anything, the morons seems to be doubling down on their crazy. At this rate, by the 2020 election, the Democratic Party will be relegated to a small handful of blue states on the West Coast and one or two in New England, and their supporters will be the comic relief on Bill Maher when he needs to make fun of someone demanding government funded sex-change operations for toddlers.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you've never heard Megyn Kelly open her mouth on Fox News then.

No. I don't listen to fox news.

Re:CNN?

[LinuxIsGarbage]

I always thought the Huffington Post was just a clickbait site.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they did, both they and Buzzfeed ran the story.

Re:CNN?

[Coren22]

AC is actually accurate. You are conflating two stories, that are only marginally related.

The audio recording was about women willingly letting him grab them.

The CNN news article being mentioned is about a person who was 14 (I think) when she accuses Trump of having sex with her, but what they failed to mention is that the case has been thrown out repeatedly, because it is not true and didn't happen.

These are entirely different stories, and you are conflating them due to your political bias, and nothing else. You can accuse the AC of gaslighting all you want, but you actually made this mistake. This happens, get over it.

Re:CNN?

[Coren22]

Um, women letting you grab them because they want you to as you are a celebrity is not sexual assault. Did you listen to the audio recording at all?

Sexual assault requires that the contact be unwanted, but as that is not what he described, it is your bias, or your source's bias showing.

Re:CNN?

[Coren22]

There were sexual assault charges, from someone who had them thrown out repeatedly because they were found to be false when investigated.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your post. You can read more about this point of view here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind

I can't help jumping on the conservative hypocrisy of the "snowflakes". Did you here Spicer being a whining, literally whining, that press criticism "demoralized" them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mycoX35EFMk

All I can say is grow the fuck up and expect to be picked apart every day, its the treatment that all politicians get, its what you signed up for.

I think the day is coming soon when the nation finds out its all smoke and mirrors, that Trump and friends only know how to pander and haven't got a clue how to actually fucking lead.

Re:CNN?

[Coren22]

Now where is the lies about Trump ? He DID say those things to Billy Bush - we HEARD him on the tape. We have PROOF.
And that DOES make the women who accused him of it more believable.

You are conflating two entirely different stories. The rape story was from a woman who accused him of rape, and had her case thrown out twice already because it didn't happen. This has nothing to do with women throwing themselves at Trump because he is rich (which is not sexual assault BTW, as there was consent).

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Democrats have fought every attempt to investigate it"

What is the evidence for this claim? We know that there has been many bi-partisian commissions and studies, but this claim is that the Democrats tried to stop attempts to investigate it. I call total BS until you provide truth.

Re: CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pizzagate was never fake.

Re:CNN?

[Coren22]

At least we didn't get the fascism and tyranny of Hillary...

You do realize that those words become entirely meaningless when you use them to describe someone who is just not walking in lockstep with your tyranny, don't you? There is nothing fascist about Trump, and he has never advocated for tyranny. That is entirely in your imagination, put there by CNN, MSNBC, or whatever news station you are watching.

Re:CNN?

[Coren22]

Didn't they already start doing that this election season? It is hard to tell with all the fake news making the rounds in the MSM.

Re:CNN?

[Coren22]

It is hard to prove something is happening when the other side blocks every attempt to do so. Why is it ok for states that vote D to have voter ID laws, but when Texas passed a law requiring ID, and offering free IDs to people who can't afford them, it is racist and clearly an attempt to prevent people voting?

Re:CNN?

[Coren22]

Isn't she the one with blood coming out of her eyes?

Re:CNN?

[Coren22]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...

There are links in there to the Buzzfeed and CNN articles about the "intel".

Re:CNN?

[Coren22]

So, when the Left claims that Breitbart is fake news, they aren't really from the left is what you are saying? Because Breitbart fits into real news, or at worst 2 or 4.

Re: CNN?

[baristabrian]

Just so you know: saying "that saying ... ... is laughable" is laughable. FTFY

Re: CNN?

[baristabrian]

Spoken like a true child.

Re:CNN?

[silentcoder]

Oh god who told you that bullshit ?

We don't KNOW who they were from so whoever told you that HAD to be making it up - there is literally no way of knowing.
The unknown person who laid the charges dropped them after he was elected and her identity was never made public.

Seriously... is this what passes for "news" in the rightwing world ? Stories that are literally IMPOSSIBLE to be true ?

Re:CNN?

[Coren22]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-...
http://www.usmagazine.com/cele...
http://www.inquisitr.com/36922...
http://www.inquisitr.com/36935...
http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

Seriously... is this what passes for "news" in the rightwing world ? Stories that are literally IMPOSSIBLE to be true

I am not on the right, so perhaps you are just so far left you can't even see the truth. I am a slightly left leaning libertarian according to political surveys. Don't try to paint me as "the other side" just to attempt to discredit what I say, it is bigoted and childish, and completely false.

Re:CNN?

[silentcoder]

I'm afraid nothing in those stories make me doubt he is a serial sexual assaulter. At worst, I see a victim suffering from such severe PTSD as a result of what happened to her at a very young age that her capacity to make her case very well suffers for it, and some opportunists who tried to use her for their own ends. I don't see any reason to doubt her claims.
Now, those details, may have been a cause to doubt it, if there wasn't also a tape in which he admitted to serial assault - and dozens of OTHER credible complaints against him.

I'm not a court of law, I can't find him guilty - but I can sure say that with the facts as known, I'd say the preponderance of available evidence points to him being guilty. Frankly the man has never in his entire life shown, for a single moment, the slightest shred of decency, honesty or conscience. So it becomes quite impossible for me to believe that there is anything so unconscionable he WOULDN'T do it. It's like arguing that one of the murders Dahmer was convicted of couldn't have been him because it was too gruesome for him.

Re:CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

The people who claim fraud can gather evidence and present it to a grand jury, or the like, on their own dime. Until there is reason to use tax money for an investigate (and someone claiming they saw or heard something is not enough), then pay for it yourself.

I don't think it's okay for any state to require ID, unless they accept any every single picture ID that is issued by government or government funded organizations. Why would student IDs be exempt but a fishing license be okay?

Re: CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a load of garbage. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that when someone needs help the conservative reaches into his own pocket to help, the liberal reaches into other people's pockets to help.

Re: CNN?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about HRC collapsing and needing to be carried into the car? Denied by all mainstream media, some of them even AFTER the video of it happening was posted online.

Re:CNN?

[DRJlaw]

Um, women letting you grab them because they want you to as you are a celebrity is not sexual assault. Did you listen to the audio recording at all?

Yes.
"I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women] -- I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

Sexual assault requires that the contact be unwanted, but as that is not what he described, it is your bias, or your source's bias showing.

The women complaining to the media seemed to think that it was unwanted. But of course, they're biased... and you're not.

Re:CNN?

[DRJlaw]

You #NeverTrump people make me sick.

Prepare to be sick for four years... I have no intention of stopping.

Re:CNN?

[Coren22]

Is that how it works? So, when someone robs my house, I do an investigation, and figure out who did it, then contact the police? I didn't know that, maybe that is why they never catch the thieves around here.

Considering that there was already evidence in Detroit when they were recounting, when will the investigation start?

Student ID is not a government ID, Fishing Licenses are provided by the state. Why would you expect a private ID such as a student ID to allow you to vote? What kind of authentication is done before you get a student ID? What is the problem with taking a few minutes to get a state ID card that is free to you? You already have no problem taking a couple hours to vote, so why is it so hard to take an hour or less to get an ID?

Re:CNN?

[stoatwblr]

"CNN still give -- for now -- the appearance of responsible and reliable journalism"

This, in spades.

It was clear to non-USAians back in the 1990s watching Gulf War 1 that CNN was part of the american propaganda machine, mindlessly regurgitating government press releases without any critical thought, compared to the other news sources covering the war. That's the reason they were the most commonly spoofed network when it came to portraying sycophantic press in movies and TV shows.

Whilst CNN has improved _slightly_ over the last 30 years, the fact that Fox news was able to lower the bar somewhat further is cause for concern.

Remember these "news" networks are the face of the USA to the outside world - and inhabitants of most countries expect an equivalent of the fairness doctrine in what's shown on anything calling itself "news". Once they realise that Fox isn't holding to that, all american networks get tarred with the same brush - on the basis that if one network is allowed to be like that then they probably all are.

I make a point of watching several worldwide networks. Whilst RT spouts propaganda and has its own biases it's quite easy to spot the govt ordered stuff as it doesn't sit well in the other editorial content (some newscasters have walked off, live on air, refusing to say stuff that Fox wouldn't even blink about airing) and even CCTV (China) is more restrained than Fox news.

It's at the point where Fox is on par with the ranting coming out of "certain repressive middle eastern states" - which would be ok if it was an opinion network but it's claiming to be news.

There is one bright spot though: Given Fox' pandering to right wing conservatives, it's interesting that even they drew the line at accepting the blatent lies about crowd sizes. The worm may yet turn (although possibly only enough to get rid of the danger that Trump represents for a more subtle leader like Pence).

Re:CNN?

[stoatwblr]

The generalisations about liberals and conservatives are pretty accurate in my experience, but there's a third group:

Sociopaths.

They manipulate others and strive for "authority" in order to gain personally (this is one of the essences of corruption, no real surprise).

Conservatives are more easily bent to their will because of that reluctance to question authority and the mindset that "if it's in the papers/on the news, it must be true" that insists that what's fed to us is already vetted for truth even when the evidence of your own eyes and ears shows differently.

One of the essences of democracy is that it must be guarded against those who would destroy or subvert it for their own ends. That was installed into me from a very young age (I'm not american) and the part about subverting makes it clear that the biggest danger comes from within the system. It seems that many people have forgotten this in the face of well-organised propagandists using the well trodden "We are under attack, if you are not with us, you are against us" rhetoric.

I can only hope that the USA (and UK, and a couple of other western democracies) come to their collective senses before things get to the point of no return. Going back to the 19th century is not an option and hasn't been since wireless telegraphy was developed - that kind of isolation is required to maintain trade or knowledge barriers and as telecommunications has become a core part of our lives I can't see anyone willing to give it up. No matter how many propagandists manage to seize control of the airwaves there will still be someone, somewhere resisting.

Real News has no Google ads and no Google anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Real News International.

Google, EPA, etc.

[turkeydance]

don't do evil, or if you do, say it's something else.

Breitbart

[Anonymous Coward]

Too much to hope brietbart was one ?

"Satire" sites

[PCM2]

Hopefully they're going after the innumerable "satire" sites, where they act like they're copying The Onion but there's absolutely nothing funny about the stories except that nothing in them is true. Facebook is rife with people passing those around, not realizing that they're fakes -- and the site's excuse is always, "Zing! We gotcha ... it was saaaaatire."

Re:"Satire" sites

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean "Bazinga!"

Re:"Satire" sites

[Anonymous Coward]

there's absolutely nothing funny about the stories except that nothing in them is true

So then they're exactly like The Onion.

Re:"Satire" sites

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook is rife with people passing those around, not realizing that they're fakes

But how else are we going to weed out the idiots?

Re:"Satire" sites

[Anonymous Coward]

not really, because most of the time, The Onion is actually funny

Nothing blows away ads as efficiently as

[Anonymous Coward]

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-5 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

Ads & malware rob speed, security & privacy

Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) natively

Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

Re:Nothing blows away ads as efficiently as

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares. Does it block FAKE NEWS sites like Breichbarf and Lifezette?

Re: Nothing blows away ads as efficiently as

[Anonymous Coward]

And, of course, Buzzfeet.

Re:Life is good

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like we somehow slipped into the best of all possible timelines. I don't know how I built up so much karma to deserve this but the gods are definitely smiling in my direction!

200 down...

[Anonymous Coward]

... how many more to go until there are no advertisers on the network and the whole advertising culture starts to fall apart?

The sooner all those bottom feeders in advertising/marketing find something vaguely worthwhile to do with their lives the better...

ban Google-Analytics please

[Anonymous Coward]

it is responsible for just as many problems with pop-up ads and malware hosts.

Re:ban Google-Analytics please

[Anonymous Coward]

Like what?

Just in time!

[Anonymous Coward]

We almost had a lunatic elected as president!!

Get Rid of All of the Fake News...

[Maltheus]

...and there'll be no more news.

Transparency

[Raenex]

Google declined to provide a listing of the banned sites.

Well of course they didn't. Brother Google knows best.

Hey Fauxbitarians worried about bakers

[Anonymous Coward]

Riddle, me this, does a yarn shop have any business telling me what I can and can't knit, or am I forced to buy from them regardless of what they allow?

Fake news is hilarious

[Okian Warrior]

But did they get the worst fake news sites like CNN, NBC and Huffington Post? How about Faux News?

If you have an eye for humor, you can find it in lots of interesting places. "Fake news" is one of these hilarious situations that just makes me laugh.

The whole thing started right after the election. One of the reasons Hillary lost is because of "fake news", and the articles of the time specifically talked about smaller web sites, about how more mainstream sites couldn't get the word out because some small upstart would post an article saying the exact opposite, and "how can the everyday person tell the difference"?

It was specifically aimed at Breitbart and Drudge report.

Then about 2 weeks later Google and Facebook announced plans to "fix" fake news, by implementing algorithms to suppress the less mainstream reporting and promote real, honest-to-goodness news sites as search results.

And people started talking about how easy it was to snooker a right-wing website into printing anything, but they could never do that to the left-ish sites because someone would point out the facts and it would all go down in flames. (Note: Actual article covered on Slashdot said exactly that.)

And... they're off.

People started taking pot-shots at the MSM with fake news tweets and facebook posts and YouTube videos, and we saw all sorts of crap being shown as real news on MSM media sites. Such as CNN running that they inadvertently ran pornography for a half hour during Thanksgiving, then apologizing for doing that. (Hint: the original incident didn't happen, CNN got pranked and doesn't even check out stories that involve themselves.)

This culminated in the Tump "golden showers" news report widely circulated by BuzzFeed and CNN and looked like an obvious fake from the outset (from tone, style, and other aspects), and would have been easy to check if they had taken the time to do so. It was also outrageously insulting and viciously timed.

BuzzFeed and CNN did not walk this back or apologize - they doubled down, writing how they felt that it was important to post the information so that the American public could come to their own conclusion. Contrast with the "how can the public tell the difference", which was the original argument against "fake news".

Trump then burned CNN bigly at a press conference (he hadn't yet been been sworn in as POTUS). Dressed them down harshly in front of the world audience, and had to harshly reprimand them as if they were children for all their shouting out of turn, demands for answers out of turn, and demands to be called on.

It was glorious! The net had a field day, everyone had a good hard laugh at the disgrace of CNN.

So now everyone has calmed down, we've had our laugh, and things are back to normal, right?

The MSM has a new term "alternative facts". It seems "fake news" didn't work out so well for them, they have to reset and restart, we're back to the beginning.

We're at the point now where we were just after the election. Trump has started setting up the MSM for another fall with his comment about inauguration numbers - that'll get the ball rolling. The MSM won't be able to let this go, the terms "alternative facts" will grow large in the public eye in the next couple of weeks.

And let's see how that goes for them. It 'sorta looks like Trump has already set them up for the big fail, giving them all the rope they need to be a laughingstock once more.

But hey, I might be wrong. It's not as if Trump knows how to manupilate the media or anything, right?

They're too smart to fall for that a second time.

Re:Fake news is hilarious

[rtb61]

In terms of politics, right at this moment, main stream media are stuck, not to the lie of liberal media or to the lie of conservative media but to the reality of corporate media, what are the stuck with, identity politics. Where all political discourse is tied down to identity politics with celebrity politicians (those politicians promoted by main stream media). What policies are they meant to discuss none of real import, none what so ever and those important policy areas only make a tiny showing when corporate media are forced to do it, else they loose all relevance.

They want bullshit empty politics and you vote for who they tell you to vote for and you hate who they tell you to hate and those celebrity politicians they elect do as they are told by the owners of those main stream media entities, the corrupt slime skulking in the background.

Everything being hammered home in main stream media is all about pushing policy right to the back of the room behind screaming identity politics and identity politicians. They are trying to force the public mind state into a pathetic mindless fugue and weak and politically ineffective state that keeps all the power with a psychopathic minority. Real policy discussion within the public mind space, all the way down to family level is what they fear the most.

Policy, policy, policy, fuck empty identity politics and throw out those fake arse identity politicians, the uncle toms and the political whores (to be fare to the identity wags, political whore is not feminine but the more the description tied to reality with the politician as the whore, the lobbyists as the pimps and the corporation executives as the johns, male or female or any combination there to. Uncle tom as in the more international recognised norm as the betrayer, who uses their identity to pretend to be one thing whilst opposing exactly what they using their identity to pretend to be).

So the big push to get economic policy out of public discussion and force identity politics back into dominance and vote for who you are told (so all about ignore Trumps policies just hate Trump and yeah they have not yet picked the corporate whore that you will be required to love, else you are a deplorable, not kidding, already be used and publicly and cheered, really sick fucking stuff).

Re:Fake news is hilarious

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow you really are a dribbling idiot

Re:Fake news is hilarious

[No Longer an AC]

The MSM has a new term "alternative facts".

And you know who gave them that term?

It was laughable to hear Conway actually use that. It's as if she's admitting to living in some sort of alternate reality.

I'll just leave this here...

[Okian Warrior]

https://gabfiles.blob.core.win...

Re:I'll just leave this here...

[Coren22]

Nice quote. It is a joy to watch the meltdown, he has a point.

Tabloid Cloakers

[Tehrasha]

Imagine how many more they could shutdown if there was an easy/effective way to report them, instead of endless dead-ends trying to locate a simple 'report abuse' link.

Re:Tabloid Cloakers

[Anonymous Coward]

Even when you do the warning is so scary I've never actually gone through with reporting anyone for fear of accidentally losing my google account and attached gmail.

Bias

[hackwrench]

And your evidence that lack of bias can even exist is?

media control

[Anonymous Coward]

TL;DFR:

Social media wins election, tanks DNC, continues to demoralize leftists everywhere.
Major news organizations label anything not produced by them as 'fake news' and proceed to launch smear campaign.
Ministry of Truth becomes a real thing.
Google, facebook, etc censor anything that goes against the narrative, remove ad revenue, etc.
CNN, etc declare that they make the rules and if President Trump will not play by their rules, they will spread fake news internationally.
[YOU ARE HERE]

Next:

(most likely) ~~The Empire~~ President Trump strikes back, suing CNN, Fox, etc for slander, libel, and yellow journalism.
(hopeful, but not as likely) President Trump has executives for major media outlets tried for treason.
(very likely) Stocks of major media outlets plummet.
(less likely) Clinton News Network, Fox, etc forced to shut doors.
(SOON) Warrants are issued for the immediate arrest of George Soros and anyone else involved in funding domestic terror organizations (BLM), riots, etc within the U.S..

We're not even through with the first week and he's already: shot down Obamacare, pulled out of TPP, talking about renegotiating NAFTA, executive orders to BUILD THE WALL, and now he's demanding investigation into the obvious voter fraud the left has been perpetuating for *years* using illegals, dead people, and other means. So far, he is making his best attempt at doing exactly what he promised he would. He won't *need* eight years to make America great again, but the other four will likely make sure it sticks.

Re:media control

[reboot246]

Of all of those the one I'd really like to see is Soros arrested. No need for execution; he's close to dying of old age anyway. Just take away his ability to fund hate groups.

Re:media control

[Anonymous Coward]

fine, then do the same for the Koch Brothers who have funded the Tea Party groups.

Re:media control

[Coren22]

Just as with GG, I have to ask, how is an organization saying that they have had enough of taxes and are "Taxed Enough Already" a hate group?

Could we please...

[Narcocide]

... ban those same advertisers from Slashdot?

Slashdot too?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish slashdot would do the same. Every now and again, when reading on an iPhone, I get redirected to the App Store to install some dodgy app.

Re:Life is good

[dugancent]

Super republican? Trump isngoing to appointment a replacement for Scalia who was already a super conservative. Once that happenes we will be right back the way it was before he died.

I don't agree

[rsilvergun]

is not "Fake News". Fox I'll give you, but then again, Fox is literally not news. They were sued for disguising editorial content as news and (successfully) made the argument that they were an entertainment network so as to skirt laws regulating news sources. But CNN? NBC? Hell, even with HuffPo I challenge you to give me a bonafide fake news story they didn't later retract in embarrassment.

I'm not sure what's worse, the fact that this nonsense gets modded up +5 or that real news sources have been dragged through the mud by the deluge of fake news.

Re:I don't agree

[frovingslosh]

Well, CNN reported results of a lot of polls before the election. If there was any truth to them and if the people polled were more fairly selected, then we wouldn't have had a bunch of fat crybaby women marching recently.

Re:I don't agree

[Notabadguy]

I'll see your bet sir, and raise you a brownie point. http://thefreethoughtproject.c...

Here's CNN telling us that it's illegal for us to read wikileaks, and that we must only receive their interpretation of it.

Or if you don't like that one, you can google any combination of "CNN Fake news" or "CNN discredited" or NBC / MSNBC / pick your choice.

Re:I don't agree

[Wootery]

Well, no, you haven't shown that these polls were deliberately massaged to give the 'right' answer. Polls often don't represent the way people end up actually voting. This isn't new.

Re:I don't agree

[No Longer an AC]

It was a local Fox affiliate's news involving a couple of disgruntled employees who that local affiliate did not allow to exercise their own editorial content. The story never aired.

I'm sure someone will accuse Snopes of being "fake news" or something, but I find their version of events more credible than yours.

Did Fox News win a court battle for the right to lie on air?

Re:I don't agree

[Anonymous Coward]

is not "Fake News". Fox I'll give you, but then again, Fox is literally not news.

How come they're allowed to call themselves "Fox NEWS" then, as opposed to, say, "Fox ENTERTAINMENT" ?

Re:I don't agree

[danbert8]

Thankfully we don't rely on polls for anything useful like determining which candidates get to debate right?

Re:I don't agree

[gnick]

we wouldn't have had a bunch of fat crybaby women marching recently.

Calling the protesters fat doesn't help your credibility. What evidence do you have that they were more overweight than the average populace and why does that metric matter?

Re:I don't agree

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen claims from conservatives alleging that snopes is biased and is part of a sinister plot by George Soros.

Re:I don't agree

[frovingslosh]

Actually I saw the fat crybaby women on the media. And I mean the "mainstream media" including NBC and ABC. Are you suggesting that these liberal media sources deliberately misrepresented the group by focusing on the most obese females?

Re:I don't agree

[Plumpaquatsch]

I'm sure someone will accuse Snopes of being "fake news" or something, but I find their version of events more credible than yours.

Did Fox News win a court battle for the right to lie on air?

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=27363

"Now, with the publication of the “Hollywood Reporter’s 35 Most Powerful People in New York Media 2015,” Roger Ailes, the Fox News chairman and CEO, has confessed that his network, despite its name, is not actually in the news business. Belittling his cable news competitors CNN and MSNBC, he gave the Reporter a statement revealing his true professional aspirations:

“In fact, Ailes, 74, no longer views those networks as rivals. ‘We’re competing with TNT and USA and ESPN,’ he says.”

Yay! Those 200 bad actors are gone for good!

[Anonymous Coward]

*eye roll*

nope

[publiclurker]

Trump has admitted to assaulting women, so let's not pretend that claims against him are anywhere in the same league.

Re:nope

[Anonymous Coward]

He has said you can grab them by the pussy when you're very rich. Which is true - in the sense that some spread their legs for money. Even more for big money, the hope to sleep their way to the top etc.

Doesn't work on all women, but the kind of woman that stalk rich guys . . .

Re:nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump said that if you're rich and famous you can just grab some women by the pussy, which is a denigrating observation about gold-diggers. But Hillary and her minions in the press certainly tried like hell to spin it as a confession to sexual harassment. I guess it worked, at least on the gullible and simple-minded.

heh - captcha = "turgid"

Re:nope

[silentcoder]

That whole thing after "in the sense of" came from YOU - he never said it and even if he HAD said it I wouldn't believe it because it's ridiculously stupid and if that was his intent he would have said "they let you grab them by the pussy".

The entire speech made it clear that he was bragging that being rich and famous means you can grab them WITHOUT consent and get away with it.

Re:nope

[gnick]

Doesn't work on all women, but the kind of woman that stalk rich guys . . .

Just because you participate in a beauty pageant doesn't mean you're stalking rich guys. He didn't admit to groping the contestants, but he did brag about getting away with walking around in the changing area where the women have clearly indicated that he wasn't welcome. In any case, the issue isn't with women that consented.

Re:nope

[Coren22]

Um, where do you get the idea that it was without consent? If they are throwing themselves at you it is with consent.

Re:nope

[Coren22]

Do you have a single instance of women that didn't consent? He described consenting women, not women that felt he attacked them.

Re:nope

[silentcoder]

No, that is decidedly NOT what he said. What he said was you can grab them without asking and get away with it.
Without asking = without consent.

He NEVER suggested they were throwing themselves at him. If he had LIBERALS wouldn't give a damn. We think that's their right !
We were NEVER upset about the word pussy (republicans were). WE were upset about the word "grab".

Listen to it again, the whole thing. He is clearly bragging that he can grab women by their genitals without asking permission and get away with it.

Re:nope

[peawormsworth]

I took it to mean that him victims would not complain because he has wealth and is a voice in the media. So that if they were to seek justice for the crime, that they would be harassed for years by lawyers and there would be a campaign using Trump money to destroy their character in the media.

In many countries, "sexual assault" is the legal charge which encompasses rape. Because civilized countries know that a penis is not required for a victim to have life long trauma.

Malware is fine though

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fake news" on our ad network? - You're banned!

Distributing malware on our ad network? - How about a volume discount?

Priorities.

I wish it includes the mobile fake virus alerts

[Parker Lewis]

I wish it includes the mobile fake alerts that keep saying your mobile has viruses and keep vibrating.

But misleading users is the whole REASON for ads!

[Anonymous Coward]

Have they gone insane?

Re: I wish it includes the mobile fake virus alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Not likely. This is about their propaganda machine.

Where's the real problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the real problem here starts with who defines "Fake". Come on, guys. Once someone with a financial or political interest to a news type, view or source gets to define "Fake", they will never define their news source as such. CNN, CBS, NBC and FOX, for example, have often reported news later shown to fit the definition of "FAKE" News (Note, I did not say always). So should the alternative internet news sites be permitted to demand the major media news sources lose their advertising and be taken down? Then why should it go the other way? The Mainstream media news sources never complain or worry about the accuracy of their own reporting.

The first amendment defends freedom of the press. There is no way to get around the fact that these alt right or other news sources would fit the definition (even without the ink) of the press in the Constitution. Finding fake information AND proving it wrong has always taken time and research. To simply "Take Down" these news sources because their input is not liked by some skirts the fact that many of these sites are doing research that brings light on some of the political, financial, and other dark areas in our society. Let them blog! Let them write and record videos! That they are not always right does not make them fake. Reading a variety of them (along with some MSM) often shows a pattern to what is going on and what people are thinking.

Freedom of the press was put there because the British regularly arrested or harassed the press when it reported something that put the status quo in a bad light. They also stopped allowing juries because they would not convict those the crown wanted convicted. The arrests and persecution were always in the name of "Law and Order". Aren't we glad the leaders of this nation decided they would no longer put up with it back then? Lets not let this country go back into something for which valuable treasure and blood was originally spilled.

No Such thing as Fake News.

[Anonymous Coward]

difering press are judged by their accuracies, not their forecasting of lies and ponderings of journal other than uninterpretted actions reported.

To have a law banning Fake News is proof of Alien (non-Constitutional) principles.