Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Begins Marking 'Fake News' As 'Disputed' (wdrb.com)
An anonymous reader writes:
Facebook is now marking fake news as "disputed," several sites reported today. "According to Facebook's Help Center, news stories that are reported as fake by people on Facebook may be reviewed by independent, third-party fact-checkers," writes WDRB Media. "The fact-checkers will be signatories of the non-partisan Poynter Code of Principles. A story will be marked as disputed if fact-checkers find the story to be fake."
Mashable reports that the feature was rolled out quietly, and didn't gain much attention until it was noticed Friday by a reporter from Gizmodo, who tweeted a screenshot showing Facebook's new "disputed" icon. Further investigation revealed Facebook's help center now includes a page explaining how news gets marked as disputed, and another page informing users how to mark a news story as fake (which points out this feature "isn't available to everyone yet.")
Mashable reports that the feature was rolled out quietly, and didn't gain much attention until it was noticed Friday by a reporter from Gizmodo, who tweeted a screenshot showing Facebook's new "disputed" icon. Further investigation revealed Facebook's help center now includes a page explaining how news gets marked as disputed, and another page informing users how to mark a news story as fake (which points out this feature "isn't available to everyone yet.")
What a poor move by Facebook. So basically all articles from Faux News will not say fake but will say disputed. This does almost nothing for the poor people who don't know Fox is pure conservative slanted fantasy and believe it to be fact. On top of this I see it as more ammunition for the right wingers claiming the left is trying to dispute their claims.
The fact-checkers will be signatories of the non-partisan Poynter Code of Principles.
The very people that I see on social media passing around some of the most egregiously toxic meme "explainers" and the like also won't go a week without citing posts on Poynter about how important it is to show integrity in reporting. Being "a signatory" to something doesn't mean squat. Hillary Clinton, for example, signed all sorts of things recording her promises not to do the very things she then went right and did as secretary of state. People who illegally register to vote do so by signing a document that, among other things, asserts that they're not doing so illegally. A Facebook news moderator sitting in Menlo Park deciding whether or not some HuffPo piece should or shouldn't be considered "disputed" ... should be considered informed and neutral because they signed the thing that they were told they had to sign in order to get that gig?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
There are nuts everywhere that dispute evolution, heliocentrism, The Big bang theory, you name it. What a stupid classification. FB is just trying to have it both ways and not piss off the nut jobs.
If I disagree with you it's because you are wrong.
There's lots of content with the opposite title of the story, what happens?
The title is false, the story is true. Skimming titles would indicate that the article is true because not disputed, social engineering win, clickbait win. The only answer is to edit titles to reflect story, but that would be unethical and a slippery slope toward rewriting the news.
I dispute that your business model can be sustained or is even relevant. Your shareholders need to know.
I find it odd that Facebook is giving people the ability to vote on the trust worthiness of the news. This will give the public a way to basically rate the mainstream media on a per article basis and as we all know most people don't trust the media. This is going to terribly blow back on all of their faces and make the MSM look even worse.
What a time to be alive!
Anyone else seeing shades of deliberate misinformation here? This is like "teaching the controversy" all over. The side that's blatantly lying just has "an opinion equally worth our time", is that it? Anytime El-Presidente Drumpf lies through his teeth, it's merely "some people may dispute this story"?
*FACTS*. AREN'T. OPINIONS.
This is physically revolting. If they're going to pull this crap, Facebook has no legitimate excuse for its continued existence. Burn their HQ to the ground; nothing of value will be lost.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
********************
I object to Intellect without Discipline.
Total race-baiting, dog-whistle propaganda is labeled 'Disputed'?
Cowardly.
All it would take for a fair system is for Facebook to let news viewers vote Real/Misleading/Unknown and show the percentages underneath like "30% real/60% misleading/10% unknown". You see a large percentage of Misleading, you can double check the story.
Why would Facebook choose to hire a group of "fact checkers" instead? Unless they wanted "fact checking" to be biased is a particular way...
Many of the social media warriors on the left and virtually all of the social media warriors on the right just shout "FAKE NEWS" at anything that doesn't fit their narrative. On the left "just ignore it" is more prevalent, whereas the right jest quotes "disputed by vincefostermurdered.com" and then views actually do differ on the shape of the earth. I think this is just the jerking off and fighting behind the gym after school phase phase of this new global social media landscape and eventually a level of "just the facts" will arise. It's was educational to have legit fact based conversations about how compromised Hillary Clinton was (she was in my somewhat researched opinion) and have the same discussion veer off the rails when Trump or Bernie was questioned. How Clinton supporters internalized that Bernie was a racist, sexist pig and Hillary was just the victim of centuries of sexism, or Bernie's supporters internalized that ... ah hell and then throw in previously reasonable Republicans who found Trump's disgusting showcase of the widow as applause bait "a sign from God".
It's a wanker infested ocean of tantrums, hissy fits and posing tough guys threatening troll tattooed college girls who are out to "destroy gender" (via Facebook natch) with taking their country back from the thugs and snowflakes with the guns they've either stuffed into their beer bellies or caress lovingly after 6 straight hours of porn. Or both.
Will always be marked as disputed then
Would be nice to see a breakdown of the top flagged articles.
Snopes has a massive and blatant liberal bias. It's hard to take any of this seriously when snopes is on the list of fact checkers.
The couple that runs Snopes admitted their bias. It's generally a great site and I often reference it, but their bias is clear pretty often.
Arseholetechnica = CNN owned & Pres. Trump PWNED (Thank you President Trump) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDFl_EdqwWI/
See my subject: TRUER WORDS WERE NEVER SPOKEN
APK
P.S.=> Arsholetechnica - You gonna try downmod HIDE this again https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10323647&cid=53976801/ ?
Oh yes, I know - UTTERLY PRICELESS + HILARIOUS! apk
Snoops is usually good for NON-POLITICAL facts. When it comes to anything political they are heavily bias.
Snopes is by far the most unbiased fact checking site. It is clear they attempt to be unbiased. All other fact checking sites in existence were created and are operated simply to disprove people they do not like. I am not saying massive is not correct, but it is still without bounds where it is a useful site. And they do a decent job of collecting and summarizing the data. It is just the Truthiness rating that is sometimes way off. Look at the "Hillary started the Birther movement" article. Sure, it is caped off with a False, but what follows is the single best summary of all the proof that the Hillary campaign did birth the birther movement. They did orders of magnitude better at proving that statement than Breitbart did.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Frankly with the multiple shitstorm of posts from wailing rabid far right anons claiming everything on the planet that they dont like has a liberal bias, its becoming easier and easier to see where the truth is.
Facebook replaced the newspaper for many people.
But they only half-assed it because they left the role of editor unfilled.
The job of an editor is to apply journalistic standards and tell reporters that their story won't be published if it doesn't meet those standards.
Facebook just became a free-for-all with no journalistic standards.
So now they are going meta and out-sourcing the work of the editors to fact-checking sites.
People who want to be lied to can still be lied to. But people who are genuinely seeking to be informed are helped by getting a modern version of editorial control back in the loop. It won't be perfect, because nothing humans ever do is perfect, but its a step up from everybody having to be an expert to even know if they articles they are reading are bullshit or not.
As opposed to everyone on the left disputing everything anyone on the right says as being non factual. Two sides of the same coin.
Paid journalists can't produce credible news at times yet people get news from Facebook? The problem with journalism is that in the US people directing the news, reporting the news, and delivering news are skewed in their facts vs telling the whole story. Yes there is some fake news but mostly there is filtered news a viewpoint intermixed with facts. Trying to create a story out of only one part of the whole story. This is the blurring of opinions and editorials vs real factual news.
Total race-baiting, dog-whistle propaganda is labeled 'Disputed'?
Cowardly.
English has always been a "living" language: new words come into being, old words suffer from disuse, and meanings change. The syntax and grammer evolves and changes with the times.
We're seeing this right with many of the words in common usage in the media. "Racist", "sexist", "islamaphobe" and a host of other terms are losing their dictionary meaning.
I'm seeing lots of people on gab.ai who are completely blase' about being called racist. Someone will say "that's racist" or "you're a racist", and people are like "yeah, I'm racist. Whatever". I find it astonishing how quickly this has happened. Not 1 year ago the term "racist" meant that you believed a particular race was inferior. Nowadays you are a racist for having a particular body posture - even when you *don't* think some race is inferior.
This is similar to how past words had a stronger meaning. Terms like "you're a jerk" (person who masterbates a lot) and "you suck" (you perform fellatio) have lost a lot of their power and meaning. The phrase "St Paul’s Cathedral Is Amusing, Awful, and Artificial" was once taken as high praise.
So the words "disputed" and "fake" will be taking on new meaning, and in a year or two will come to have colloquial definitions that match their usage, which is not the usage we assign to them right now. "Disputed" will probably come to mean "politically charged", and "fake" will come to mean "from non-mainstream sources" without any of today's connotations of meaning.
It's just the living language, undergoing change.
Who determines what's true? Who will be the final arbiter? All this becomes is tyranny of the majority. This is no fix.
The truth is not always a number that can easily be compared. It is often fluid with different sides seeing different aspects.
It is unknowable, forever hidden or even purposefully obfuscated. What is going on now is simply an evolution of human understanding. Skepticism has ensued but the big barrier is the belief that you need to hold on and defend "your knowledge" as if throwing it away would somehow impinge upon your character. This barrier is being broken, the process however will be slow and it goes against most current human programming. As for those who wish to defend the (sub human beings?) from having access to all information. You know what you are doing your chance of success is ZERO.
A story will be marked as disputed if fact-checkers find the story to be fake.
Remember when fact-checking was, like, a basic part of writing news stories as a professional journalist? Nice to see Facebook picking up the slack for something "news organizations" don't think is really necessary anymore (because they don't want to pay for the time/resources to do it).
You'll just end up ADDING credibility to false stories when you say it's "disputed". Disputed can be used for things like "dark matter" where there is some evidence one can point to, but nothing concrete can be derived from it.
Fake news is usually based on pure conjecture and hyperbole, in a very fuzzy math / connect the dots kind of thinking. People who believe fake news WANT to believe it and will use ANY wiggle room as validation.
See subject: EATING YOUR WORDS != good nutrition https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10320833&cid=53976475/ letting /.ers do it for me!
So tell us - how'd they taste?
Like your foot in your mouth ramming them in (lmao) washed down by the bitter taste of SELF-defeat, perhaps?
* :)
APK
P.S.=> Eat your words arstechnica UNIDENTIFIABLE worm & EAT MY DUST (as always) - now, per tradition - you just KNOW I've just GOTTA say it, don't you? Ah, but of COURSE you do:
THIS? This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'", always is vs. you dolts (you provide the ammo for me to blow you away with every single time, lol)... apk
So, let's be clear here. You feel that Snopes is being unbiased when they declare easily provable lies to be false, instead of insisting that the absurd shit is true (because if it were true it would be bad for the Right).
How about issues where there is a large gulf of grey area? What about their refusal to fact check certain stories? Are you quite sure your list of bookmarks of easy-to-check stories tells us what you think it does?
Shill, proselytize thyself.
propaganda
Agreed, "disputed" is more vague than "fake". But fake isn't a good label. They need a full reputation system, so sources repeated proved wrong rank lower than source that are proved to be correct over time. So that each time some crazy tweets something random at 6 n the morning, it's clearly noted as from that crazy.
To me, this is good reporting:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39168149
It lists Trump's latest claim, the circumstances just before that claim , that led up to it, and notes the pattern it fits. What it doesn't do, is say anything false or make up your mind for you. It does contain opinion and commentary, down towards the bottom, it extrapolates the pattern forward, but that seems reasonable and is clearly opinion.
BBC has REPUTATION behind it, and so even the opinion piece has value because of BBC's long established reputation.
CNN, likewise, Trump attacks it because it has reputation. He wouldn't attack it if it was some random scandal sheet. They too, are full of unpleasant facts.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/04/politics/donald-trump-russia-what-we-know/index.html
You are encouraged to provide examples of these cases you mention.
Since you are so sure about them, surely you can list some of them, right?
Right?
There is so much fake news today that people don't know what to believe. Alternative sources can at least get people who want to look a different source for facts, or often a more complete set of facts. Flagging "disputed" from a biased perspective does not help anyone return a full set of facts.
It's really funny how the anti-Trump people bash Fox, yet ignore their own team (not really, it's quite common). FSN is often just as left leaning as CNN or MSNBC depending on the time of day and show running.
The big problem in the US today is that there are simply no reliable sources of news. Just as rare, are reasonable opinions that argue with a full set of facts.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
That's not true, troll.
I can see at least some people saying "See, it's not 'Disputed' on FB, it must be true!"
Or maybe almost everything will be "disputed"
Does the non-partisan Poynter Code of Principles think that references to a "pizza-related map" on a discarded handkerchief are perfectly normal?
Is there an appellate procedure if you produce a news that is wrongly flagged as "disputed"?
REALLY? The first tip that this is meaningless is that the far-left "progressive" fanatics at Factcheck.org, Politifact and Snopes (all three of which have nasty reputations for misleading people) are signatories.
What a laugh. Apparently ANY warped and dishonest leftist organ can sign up to those non-enforceable and un-policed "principles" - so the whole thing is utterly meaningless. Snopes is the worst of those three I noted, not even up to the standards of the other two (Factcheck and Politifact) who themselves each have long histories of using bias in the selection of what they will or will not "fact check" and re-interpreting things and then fact-checking their interpretations of the things rather than the actual things.
One of the major shifts in American politics that occurred in the havok of the 1960s was that "deconstructionism" and relativism took over in political rhetoric. This approximately coincided with the leftist takeover of the Democratic party at the 1968 DNC convention. Before the '68 convention, the Democrats were center-left, and while Democrats and Republicans certainly had their differences on POLICY, everybody agreed that FACTS were FACTS. Post 1968, more-left-leaning people were on the ascendancy in the Democrat party (not yet in control, but with enough influence they needed to be catered to) and in academia and in the press and "facts" became increasingly subjective. Somebody from the center-left or center-right would say something and some leftist would "deconstruct" the statement and then attack his interpretation of what was said and even deny plainly factual evidence. EVERYTHING has become hyper-political and suject to relativism as the left has ascended in politics.
We are now at a place where POTUS Trump can TEMPORARILY (for 90 days) ban MOST travellers from SEVEN of the 50+ majority-Muslim nations, and supposedly neutral and unbiased journalists breathlessly report this as a "muslim ban"... so much for objective facts and "fact checking".../p.
Well let's face it, since the Trump regime took office that's turned into a pretty safe bet.
Snopes is by far the most unbiased fact checking site. It is clear they attempt to be unbiased. All other fact checking sites in existence were created and are operated simply to disprove people they do not like. I am not saying massive is not correct, but it is still without bounds where it is a useful site. And they do a decent job of collecting and summarizing the data. It is just the Truthiness rating that is sometimes way off. Look at the "Hillary started the Birther movement" article. Sure, it is caped off with a False, but what follows is the single best summary of all the proof that the Hillary campaign did birth the birther movement. They did orders of magnitude better at proving that statement than Breitbart did.
Not quite.
The theory started with conservatives, though didn't take off. Some Clinton supporters (and possibly some people associated with the campaign) pushed it a bit during the primary battle, but again it didn't take off.
Where the conspiracy theory actually got traction, ie the start of the birther movement, was with Republicans.
Realistically the start of the birther movement was Obama running for president while being a black person who was somewhat exotic and spent some time growing up outside of the US. There's a portion of the population who will view him as not being authentically American, and they look for ways to rationalize that feeling. That demographic leans strongly Republican, and the moment the idea that he might not be American came up they jumped all over it.
I stole this Sig
> Look at how many people on Slashdot fell for pizzagate.
What do you mean 'fell for'? Very few people ever believed there were kids under the pizza parlor. Lots of people thought that Podesta and Alefantis had super creepy taste in "art" (do you have "art" of naked, bound teenagers lying around?) and thought that maybe there would be enough lying around in public for an actual police investigation.
And not many people have ever lost "pizza related handkercheifs" or wondered whether they played dominoes better on pizza or pasta. When people went looking for what kind of code words they might be, funny thing, they turned up to be pedo slang on sites like urban dictionary and well-attested long before this whole thing came to anyone's attention.
But I guess Snopes didn't bother to cover that part in their 1-day investigation.
The problem is the fucking bubble, Facebook, wherein people log in and stay.
Facebook is not a goddam news site.
it's social media where relatives and friends post inane shit.
News is at news sites.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Posted a "new to me" Urban Legend: Scuba Bong, clearly labeled Urban Legend. Next day, a dismissive label, "Disputed!" Er...is the SCUBA Bong disputed, or is the Urban Legend status of the SCUBA Bong disputed? Big Brother Facebook muddies the waters.
How do you actually get news on facebook?
I only get posts of friends, their timelines etc. and: advertisements. I never saw any news on my Facebook visits. Or do people consider "advertisements" as "news"? But perhaps I once checked a box: "no news" or something, no idea.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
This is just another way to cover for their bias, especially when they're as selective on policy enforcement as Twitter.
I guess the new bar of "making it" will be having your story 'disputed' by Facebook's favorites.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I stick mostly to CNN & BBC - but it is typically factually accurate.
Yes, the BBC can be very accurate, especially when they announced the collapse of WTC building 7 even before it had happened yet.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Fake news = A news story made up in whole or substantially with intentionally verifiability untrue information in it.
I think news with deliberate omissions in it, to manipulate the people into accepting 'alternative facts' as truth, also constitutes fake news.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Given Snopes' funding by Clinton interests, I'd be highly suspect of them [effectively] clearing themselves.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Confusion is to be expected during rapidly evolving, large scale events.
Ezekiel 23:20
And now: Earth turns dark every twelve hours - Trump blames N. Korea of new secret weapon. Facebook: This is a "disputed" story.
Everyone is acting as if an opinion of a fact IS a fact. No. Facts are facts period. If one person says something and there's video of them saying it then it's true. Period. Someone else or that same person saying "I didn't say that" or "no, I actually said this ____". Is not an alternate fact or a valid opinion or anything other than a lie. If Trump says his phones were tapped by Obama and there's zero evidence offered as proof that's not a "disputed" story, it's a f****** lie.
quick, someone post a story to facebook that "P == NP" so we can find out if that is true or not.
Factually not a regime, buddy.
Bitch Trump is crying!
Bullshit. BBC is an intelligence propaganda outlet, like the rest of the mainstream media. The only confusion was the timing of the scripted news piece stating that WTC7 had collapsed.
We are being had by these phonies. Don't make excuses for them. They know exactly what they are doing. BBC is not your friend.
15 years ago everyone that wasn't an aol rtard knew snopes was bias as fuck and unreliable for anything more complex than an urban legend.
did you forget?
Agreed. To me, a lie of omission is just as bad when you can be certain the source knew that they had left it out.
Just another day in Paradise
Would that be enough to get someone's statement that denies human-caused global warming/climate change labelled as false?
or does it have to be 9 out of 10 dentists who agree?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
A joint, open-sourced AI project by IBM, Google, and leading universities should be built to serve as an objective, disinterested physical and social world modeller and it can answer truth-likelihood and objectiveness/bias tendency of all statements except those whose answer is 42.
We could call it "Oracle" - no wait, scratch that. Any other suggestions for its name?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Getting a detail wrong on a huge, unexpected, international disaster is hardly the same as manufacturing news stories.
Yes, the BBC can be very accurate, especially when they announced the collapse of WTC building 7 even before it had happened yet.
If your prime example of the BBC falsifying information is a moment of confusion while scrambling around in international turmoil more than 15 years ago, I don't think I'll be abandoning them as as a news source just yet. Prematurely announcing the collapse was an understandable mistake, not remotely an attempt at propaganda.
Surely if they were really a problem you could find something a little more persuasive.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
My favorite terminology is "independent" and "third-party".
As if these people aren't in any way affiliated with the group paying them money. Especially when that group has a known history of political bias and has been caught using it to manipulate data more than once.
Some other favorites of mine are: officials, representatives, experts, retired (insert agency here, they have no more access to current affairs than you and I), and of course anyone from the Hollywood circuit.
How amusing that someone from Gizmodo talks about "fake news" when they are quite good at writing fake news themselves. That site is a flaming pile of dog shit.
It seems to me that fake, as traditionally used, means that something isn't what it says it is. A fake car can't drive, a fake laptop won't turn on, a piece of fake fruit might be made of wax. There's no element of truth other than the aesthetic. It LOOKS like the thing it is claiming to be but contains none of the content. Why, therefor, are people's extreme opinions being labelled as 'fake'? They might be lacking in truth, but all news outlets have always put their own spin on stories and further a narrative they support, in many cases lying in order to do so. In using 'fake' in such an odd way, we're now getting to a point where entire news organisations are being dismissed for some factual inaccuracies in one or two stories. Can't we go back to calling specific 'journalists' and news outlets liars whenever they produce 'lies'?
I stick mostly to CNN & BBC - but it is typically factually accurate.
Yes, the BBC can be very accurate, especially when they announced the collapse of WTC building 7 even before it had happened yet.
Thanks for putting your other comments into context. I used to be a truther. Then I grew the fuck up.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Bullshit. BBC is an intelligence propaganda outlet, like the rest of the mainstream media. The only confusion was the timing of the scripted news piece stating that WTC7 had collapsed.
We are being had by these phonies. Don't make excuses for them. They know exactly what they are doing. BBC is not your friend.
LOL. The competence you imbue your dastardly enemies with is truly staggering.
I mean you really ought to give up.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Subtle shift in phrasing, like replacing "fake news" with "disputed" is a popular propaganda technique called "euphemistic labelling", using euphemistic language to describe reprehensible conduct is another way that individuals can morally disengage from their moral standard.
"Disputed news" are still "fake news", but new language gives perceived legitimacy to the topic, while doing nothing to change the content.
This feels like the first step in accepting fake news as part of regular business, worming into everyday lives on a legitimate basis, and making public unaware that it really is fake, the "disputed" gives ground for "well, if its disputed, then surely theres some truth to it from both sides, so I'll side with the other" - thus accepting fake news, even though the essence is still lies and deceit =/
I think it's worse than that when you know it on beforehand. Had nothing to do with confusion.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
There is an example of the national Dutch news service showing an 'attempt' of a BBC reporter to question Putin about the terrible loss of life in Syria.
He asks his question, camera turns away, then off.
Newscaster: 'Putin shunned BBC reporter asking about the terrible humanitarian disaster in Syria.'
The real, complete, version however, shows the camera turning back to the couple, with Putin attending the reporter for about 15 minutes.
Now that is what I call a display of deliberately generated fake news by national television in order to damage somebody's character.
To me it was of the contributions to my trust being totally gone through the window.
I'll never trust any news service again.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Because Facebook users are the most intelligent and discriminating of people on this planet. Well, so much for all conservative news feeds. The liberals have won the idiot war. I feel really bad for America now that entitled morons whined loud enough to get that squeaky wheel greased to their liking.
Pax Vobiscum
I'm sure you're trying to imply something about the BBC, but for the life of me I can't figure out what.
I think it's worse than that when you know it on beforehand. Had nothing to do with confusion.
Oh! Now I see! Once we eliminate the absurd notion that a mistake was made during all of the confusion, we're left with the obvious conclusion that the BBC had prior knowledge of the events. It's so clear now! How did I miss it?
Perhaps because I'm not a paranoid, conspiracy-theorist whack-job.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Does anyone else see the eventuality of this? Everything will get flagged as fake and the fact checkers will be overwhelmed. I don't see this adding anything.
Oh the inhumanity of it all... everyone building their own little insular worlds of what they consider to be true, without considering objective reality.
Two news items bemoaning the lack of internet gatekeepers...
1) http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...
> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be
> consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was allowing
> average citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and
> access information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.
2) http://www.drudgereportarchive...
> Clinton was asked whether she favored curbs on the Internet, after the DRUDGE REPORT ... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping
> made headlines with coverage of her husband's affair with a White House intern.
> "We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are all
> these competing values
> function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?" she said.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user