Fake News Sites Are Changing Their Domain Name To Get Around Facebook Fact-Checkers (mashable.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fake News Sites Are Changing Their Domain Name To Get Around Facebook Fact-Checkers (mashable.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Thursday January 31, 2019 @11:10AM from the sneaky-bastards dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Mashable: In order to avoid Facebook's fact checking system, the site formerly known as YourNewsWire, one of the most well-known purveyors of fake news online, has simply rebranded. The site now goes by News Punch and posts fake news content similar to what it published under their former name, according to a report by Poynter. YourNewsWire co-founders Sinclair Treadway and Sean Adl-Tabatabai, who reside in California, founded the site in 2014. The two completely migrated the website from the "yournewswire.com" domain name to "newspunch.com" in November 2018. Treadway told Bloomberg at the time that they move was made due to declining revenue thanks to Facebook's fact-checking system. Under this program, fact-checking outlets like Snopes are able to mark content posted on Facebook as false, which in turn decreases the site's reach on Facebook. According to the investigation, the workaround has been a success. Content that Poynter itself had found to be previously marked false on "yournewswire.com" was ported over to the "newspunch.com" domain. When shared on Facebook, that same fake news content that now lived on "newspunch.com" was not marked as false under the fact-checking program. Facebook is reportedly rolling out features to thwart the site's workaround.

197 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What did CNN change it's name to? by danbuter · 2019-01-31 11:12 · Score: 0, Troll

How will CNN and MSNBC get around this ban?
1. Re:What did CNN change it's name to? by BeauHD++(3492052) · 2019-01-31 11:20 · Score: -1
  
  Sianide. I heard it tastes good and has an added side effect of killing rats. Maybe you should try some, TROLL.
2. Re:What did CNN change it's name to? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 11:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Probably by being more honest and trustworthy than the actual frauds and liars to the point they offer a product that isn't dependent on being a low-rent internet outfit with no real operations.
  Yeah, I get it, you want us to hate CNN and swear by your own partisan devotional, but when your devoted leader is barely stringing two coherent sentences together, you don't actually have much appeal.
3. Re:What did CNN change it's name to? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  Why are you being modded down?! They, the Times and the Post are some of the biggest broadcasters of fake news there is. Bunch of war mongering bastards!
  And how do you like those dumbass democrats? Now James Clapper is a hero! So, let's talk about "Fake News"! First, you idiots are making Trump look sane. You are only helping his campaign. Congratulations! Morons!
4. Re:What did CNN change it's name to? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 11:40 · Score: -1
  
  why don't you got eat some hamburders, drink some covfefe, and shut the fuck up.
5. Re:What did CNN change it's name to? by Major_Disorder · 2019-01-31 11:41 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  How will CNN and MSNBC get around this ban?
  Simple.
  Watch for CMM, and NSMBC coming soon.
  
  --
  First law of people: People are generally stupid.
6. Re:What did CNN change it's name to? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 11:56 · Score: 0
  
  They say what you want to hear so that you look at more ads. This includes CNN and other TV news outlets. Any resemblance to actual reality is completely incidental. They make you angry for money and there is no consequence for their lies. Have a nice day.
7. Re: What did CNN change it's name to? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  Are you kidding? I'm a pretty far left liberal, but I'm not retarded enough to think CNN or msnbc are objective or honest.
  "Anonymous sources report that police are looking for an average person with dark hair."
8. Re:What did CNN change it's name to? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 12:51 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  cnn and msnbc? trustworthy? Sorry, they're no better than fox.
9. Re:What did CNN change it's name to? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 13:35 · Score: 0
  
  How will CNN and MSNBC get around this ban?
  PMSNBC, CBS, ABS, and the DNC-Times get around it the same way Faux news gets around it, money and lots of it. Since they are part of the MAFIAA they have loads of it. This is why it is best to avoid the movies or music by the MAFIAA, they funnel some of it to their fake news divisions, and some more to lobbyists.
10. Re:What did CNN change it's name to? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 13:37 · Score: -1
  
  This it the problem with people whose two brain cells never meet each other in that empty cavity on top of their shoulders: if they are able to think they only think in binary.
  Do I think that everything on CNN or MSNBC is true? No, I am no conspiracy nut but even reporters get things the wrong way or gets fooled. Do I think that there is no bias in the news reported on CNN or MSNBC? No, we humans are incapable of not being affected by bias to a certain degree. Do I think that CNN and MSNBC is as bad as FOX? Hell no, even in hell there are different degrees of bad. FOX isn't even trying to hide that they are biased, they spew garbage all over the place. Still, they are better than Alex Jones, so that might be a redeeming quality.
  If you are stupid to think that the world is black and white and there are no shades inbetween should get your license to vote retracted. You are a sorry excuse for a human being.
11. Re:What did CNN change it's name to? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 13:40 · Score: 0
  
  Why are you being modded down?! They, the Times and the Post are some of the biggest broadcasters of fake news there is. Bunch of war mongering bastards!
  Anyone using the term "Fake news" shows that they don't know jack shit. Tell us what lies they have been reporting. Or is it just that you don't like what they are saying?
12. Re:What did CNN change it's name to? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 14:36 · Score: 0
  
  But there are consequence for their lies. The Consequences are all around us.
13. Re: What did CNN change it's name to? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 15:03 · Score: 0
  
  Well, for starters...
  https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/
14. Re:What did CNN change it's name to? by Crashmarik · 2019-01-31 15:16 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...
  Or from 2008
  https://www.politifact.com/fac...
  Or last year
  https://www.11alive.com/articl...
  Or just in general
  https://www.globalresearch.ca/...
15. Re: What did CNN change it's name to? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 15:24 · Score: 0
  
  Not to mention...
  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/nation/2018/12/21/german-reporters-dispatch-trump-country-featured-mexicans-keep-out-sign-he-made-it-all-up/
16. Re: What did CNN change it's name to? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  And who can forget...
  https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan-phillips-video
17. Re:What did CNN change it's name to? by serviscope_minor · 2019-01-31 21:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...
  Well that has zero credibility. Anything I read there would have to be independently verified. Post a sound source.
  https://www.politifact.com/fac...
  That says there was nothing wrong with the CNN footage.
  https://www.11alive.com/articl...
  Access denied from the server.
  https://www.globalresearch.ca/...
  Global research? That sounds super legit.
  Well that's 0 for 4 on your side.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
18. Re:What did CNN change it's name to? by houghi · 2019-02-01 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  Luckily FoxNews will say FoxNews.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
19. Re:What did CNN change it's name to? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  MoxNews would like a word with you
20. Re: What did CNN change it's name to? by squiggleslash · 2019-02-01 04:41 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  1. You're not a "far left liberal", that's like describing someone describing themselves as an Anarcho-Trotskyite.
  2. One of my pet peeves on Slashdot is how people intentionally misread something and pretend it said something else. The GP didn't say "CNN and MSNBC are objective and honest", he or she said "(They are) more honest and trustworthy than the actual frauds and liars(...)".
  They are. Objectively they most certainly are more objective and honest than the bizarre mix of outlets your grandparents keeps forwarding links to on Facebook. They try to tell the truth most of the time. Sometimes they sensationalize, but that doesn't mean they're not trying to tell the truth. Sometimes they make mistakes. But that doesn't mean they're not trying to tell the truth. Sometimes they employ someone who sells them a bogus story. But that doesn't mean they're not trying to tell the truth. Yes, sometimes their biases steer them to report on some stories and ignore others, but that doesn't mean they're not trying to tell the truth.
  Not even Rachel Maddow is likely sitting there thinking "What can I make up about President Trump and the Republicans today?" I know you're pretending to be a liberal, but those of us who are actually on the left actually get offended when we're given a fake scandal and we find it's fake, so those trying to get our respect don't do it. Sure, they'll hype up something you don't consider important, like stealing kids from legal asylum seekers and putting them in cages before sending them to be tortured, and ignore something you do consider important, like a random immigrant doing a crime, but there's a world of difference between that... and lying.
  And it's the lying or lacking of lying, and the willingness to open up to mistakes, that makes CNN and MSNBC, imperfect than they are, more trustworthy than Breitbart.ru.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
21. Re: What did CNN change it's name to? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  Let's apply your wonderful logic to your own comment.
  "https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...
  Well that has zero credibility. Anything I read there would have to be independently verified. Post a sound source."
  You have zero credibility. Anything you say would have to be independently verified. Post a sound source.
  "https://www.politifact.com/fac...
  That says there was nothing wrong with the CNN footage."
  No it says the photo "was not used to make Donald Trump look bad" and that it was not taken during hurricane Florence. Refuting a internet claim by saying the photo is of a different tropical storm in no way exonerates the very evident misleading shot. I rate your summary of that article as "pants on fire".
  "https://www.11alive.com/articl...
  Access denied from the server."
  I got an access denied error from CNN. They must instantly be fake news. My network failure must directly be the irrefutable source of a 3rd parties legitimacy.
  "https://www.globalresearch.ca/...
  Global research? That sounds super legit."
  Servicescope_minor that sounds super legit.
  "Well that's 0 for 4 on your side."
  Yep.
22. Re: What did CNN change it's name to? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  You have zero credibility. Anything you say would have to be independently verified. Post a sound source.
  You're zero for 80 Crashmarik
23. Re:What did CNN change it's name to? by thegarbz · 2019-02-01 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  I prefer CNNNN https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
24. Re:What did CNN change it's name to? by Crashmarik · 2019-02-01 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'd Reply but the AC did a fine job.
  But I do admire your chutzpah it's not everyone who will try an "it's wrong because I don't like it" argument
25. Re: What did CNN change it's name to? by mapkinase · 2019-02-01 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  You do not have to partisan to see the bullshit of CNN. Political affiliation, selective facts, selective angles.
  They are all the same ilk: from Fox News to CNN - unabashedly partisan pieces of shit
  
  --
  I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
26. Re:What did CNN change it's name to? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 15:42 · Score: 0
  
  Let's try a slightly more cynical take on this.
  The Deep State will soon be able to shutdown anyone they don't like by saying the web site to shutdown used to be called some other BadEvilNotGood.com web site.
27. Re:What did CNN change it's name to? by serviscope_minor · 2019-02-01 21:01 · Score: 1
  
  But I do admire your chutzpah it's not everyone who will try an "it's wrong because I don't like it" argument
  I do admire your chutzpah to deeply misrepresent what I said. Let me spell it out for you again.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Remember it's not what is being said by Crashmarik · 2019-01-31 11:14 · Score: 0, Troll

But who is saying it.
Which is why fact checkers weasel with terms like mostly false which even the Columbia Journalism Review called BS
1. Re:Remember it's not what is being said by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 11:48 · Score: 0
  
  This why I, Crashmarik, get all my news from qanon.chemtrail-braincontrol.info.ck. Because there is no such thing as fake news, it's just a conspiracy created by the cloud people to suppress the truth about Hitlery eating fetuses in a pizzeria basement. Cloud people did 9/11.
2. Re:Remember it's not what is being said by Sarten-X · 2019-01-31 12:01 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  "Mostly false" is usually a hedge bet. It doesn't mean the referenced claim is any more worthy of consideration.
  I can make the statement that "the daytime sky is blue because there are millions of blue fairies flying around during the day, and they sleep at night." It's easy for a fact-checker to say that claim is false, because the physics of a blue sky are well-understood. Then I can turn around and attack the fact-checkers for slandering me, because it's obvious that the sky is indeed blue. By including just a small bit of truth, I can both appeal to people with only a simple understanding (like those who have looked outside and seen a blue sky), and also give myself ammunition for a later counter-attack against the fact-checkers: "See? This part is provably true, and they didn't acknowledge it! They're clearly biased against me!"
  That counter-attack itself serves multiple goals. Of course, it makes my life easier if fact-checkers are discredited, since I can lie with impunity later, but it also provides a bit more cover of the original claim. While everyone is discussing how truthful the "sky is blue" claim is, they're not discussing the claim about "blue fairies sleep at night". If my political goal is to subsidize my chain of hotels catering to fairies, I can fill the conversation with arguments about fact-checkers and truth meters, while quietly pushing my agenda. If I can lie enough and manufacture enough controversy to discredit all fact-checkers, then I can lie with complete impunity. Even new start-up fact-checkers can be quickly shot down by lumping them in with my previously-discredited victims.
  This is why it's important to read the full articles. The tiny assessments can give you an idea of how severely a politician is trying to manipulate you, but to really understand what's true or false, you have to read the fact-checker's full report.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
3. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 12:37 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Illegal aliens kill over 2,000 Americans per year.
  This is factually accurate, supported by numerous studies and basic crime statistics where there is a body plus a person found guilty for the death.
  This widely reported objective fact is rated "mostly false", but because Snopes claims, "immigrants have a lower crime rate than the general population."
  Their argument is dishonest, because it purposefully ignores the operative word "illegal" which is distinctly different from just "immigrant". It also doesn't rebut the basic fact that they are actually killing 2,000 Americans per year. It just pretends like that's not what we're talking about, when it is exactly we are talking about.
4. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by PopeRatzo · 2019-01-31 12:45 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Illegal aliens kill over 2,000 Americans per year.
  American jackoffs with guns kill over 39,000 Americans per year.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
5. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 12:58 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah but they're Americans so those homicides aren't illegal.
6. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 13:14 · Score: 0
  
  Whataboutism.
7. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by drinkypoo · 2019-01-31 13:41 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This is factually accurate, supported by numerous studies and basic crime statistics where there is a body plus a person found guilty for the death.
  [citation needed]
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
8. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  Mostly themselves or other criminals. But you're missing the point, which is that the "fact checkers" are quite often operating with a political bias.
9. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 13:48 · Score: 0
  
  Illegal aliens kill over 2,000 Americans per year.
  This is factually accurate, supported by numerous studies and basic crime statistics where there is a body plus a person found guilty for the death.
  This widely reported objective fact is rated "mostly false", but because Snopes claims, "immigrants have a lower crime rate than the general population."
  Could post a link to the Snope page that rates this statement as "mostly false?" Or were you thinking of their rating of the statement "Have Undocumented Immigrants Killed 63,000 American Citizens Since 9/11?" as false?
10. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by TigerPlish · 2019-01-31 13:52 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  American jackoffs with guns kill over 39,000 Americans per year.
  Are you somehow trying to be sarcastic, or something?
  'cause the death by firearm yearly rate is about 13,000 in the US, not "over 39,000."
  Why the inflation? I pulled 13,000 as a number after comparing multiple sources. How'd you get three times over?!
  
  --
  The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
11. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Pseudonym · 2019-01-31 13:59 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Unless you're reading a different claim than I am, according to Snopes the figure is based on a misreading of a GAO report which actually covered over 50 years (not 4) of arrest (not conviction) records.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
12. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by DNS-and-BIND · 2019-01-31 14:02 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Whataboutism. It neither addresses nor refutes the premise established by the other poster.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
13. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  This is not informative you fucking disingenuous asshole.
  In 2016, roughly 22,000 of the 33,000 firearms deaths were suicides. So nearly 70% of firearms deaths in the US are Americans fucking offing themselves.
  So where do most of the remaining deaths come from? Handgun deaths, in democratic anti-gun strongholds. The most deadly places to be in the United States are democratic strongholds and are perpetrated by low income impoverished youth by handguns.
  Straight from the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
14. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by PopeRatzo · 2019-01-31 14:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  'cause the death by firearm yearly rate is about 13,000 in the US, not "over 39,000."
  My figures come direct from the Center for Disease Control, which is part of the Executive Branch of the United States government. Would you care to tell us where your "13,000" figure comes from?
  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/press...
  https://www.statista.com/stati...
  The "over 39.000" was what the Center for Disease Control reported for the calendar year 2018 as of December 28, 2018.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
15. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by PopeRatzo · 2019-01-31 14:31 · Score: 0
  
  Whataboutism. It neither addresses nor refutes the premise established by the other poster.
  The premise doesn't require refutation because it's false on its face.
  https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/2...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
16. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by rahvin112 · 2019-01-31 18:19 · Score: 1
  
  Do you consider someone killing themselves with a gun to be "American jackoffs with guns kill over 39,000 Americans per year".
  Because I'll tell you what, to the majority of Americans, Suicide doesn't count. Does any country in the world include suicides in their murder statistics like you are trying to do? After all, suicide is murder right?
17. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by bongey · 2019-01-31 18:43 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Fucking idiot more than half are suicides . " jackoffs with guns kill over 39,000 Americans per year." There are NOT 39k people being killed by other people.
18. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by PopeRatzo · 2019-01-31 19:39 · Score: 1
  
  Do you consider someone killing themselves with a gun to be "American jackoffs with guns kill over 39,000 Americans per year".
  Yes, absolutely. The standard we were discussing was "gun deaths". If you use a gun to kill yourself and you are an American, you are an American jackoff killing an American.
  By definition.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
19. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by PopeRatzo · 2019-01-31 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  There are NOT 39k people being killed by other people.
  Who said there was? Reread the post. And yes, 39,000 Americans were killed by Americans with guns last year (and the year before and before - see CDC statistics above).
  Can't you fucking read English? Words don't change magically on the page just to fit your agenda. Americans water the tree of liberty with the blood of 39,000 Americans every year.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
20. Re:Remember it's not what is being said by xonen · 2019-01-31 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  "the daytime sky is blue because there are millions of blue fairies flying around during the day, and they sleep at night."
  I found your explanation very plausible :)
  Thing is. Do we really want sites like 'facebook' to judge for us if something is true or not. Sometimes it's obvious. Sometimes it's indeed plain misinformation. Sometimes it's a joke. Next time it's for commercial reasons to cripple the competition. Next time it's politics.
  While i don't mind fact-checking sites, why do people on facebook not just link to articles on such sites. And yes, facebook may have good intentions, but, the big but is, i don't trust facebook either.
  For same reasons i don't want google - or any search engine - to judge if something is true or not. And excuses like 'people are misinformed' are bull. Cause who are they to say someone else is misinformed, because half of that fact-checking is the same propaganda they claim to oppose. Wikipedia is for general-consensus-information. Google is for searching the internet. Facebook is for sharing posts and pictures. Let people decide for their own.
  
  --
  A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
21. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by TigerPlish · 2019-01-31 23:16 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  You're cherry-picking. 38.something K was ALL INJURIES to firearms, including suicides.
  Homicides (that's ded dead, not injured) 14.4. Suicides the balance.
  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/...
  Stop cherrypicking to try to improve your position. But I understand, it's human nature to do so.
  
  --
  The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
22. Re:Remember it's not what is being said by jouassou · 2019-01-31 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  It's easy for a fact-checker to say that claim is false, because the physics of a blue sky are well-understood.
  Actually, physics say that the sky is violet. It's biology that makes it blue, since our eyes are not very sensitive to violet.
23. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Highdude702 · 2019-02-01 00:23 · Score: 0
  
  You get more dishonest by the day. Have you looked in a mirror? How do you live with yourself. I could never walk around spewing lies all day. You have some nerve buddy...
24. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Highdude702 · 2019-02-01 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  Here you are being a lying scumbag only half a page down from the last lie. SUICIDE IS NOT SOMEBODY MURDERING ANOTHER PERSON! Can't even be honest with yourself anymore I bet.
25. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Highdude702 · 2019-02-01 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  Shut up Racist!!
26. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  Holy shit, did you just cite convicted defamers and political activist group SPLC in a "citation needed" link?
  Damn, man, that's some seriously funny shit you got there. Have considered going on SNL? You'd be funnier than 90% of the losers they host these days.
27. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by drinkypoo · 2019-02-01 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  That's disingenuous. When people kill themselves with a firearm, they may or may not have done it by other means. And those other means may or may not involve other people. They might throw themselves off a bridge, or in front of a train. So the actual figure of relevance is how many people would not have killed themselves without easy access to a firearm, less the number of lives (or even hours) lost if they used other means which harm other people, like getting really drunk and then driving across a highway median.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
28. Re:Remember it's not what is being said by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 01:30 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, the sky has no color. It's just that the light of the sun appears blue (to most human eyes) after travelling through the atmosphere (at certain times, under certain weather conditions).
  Any other pedants want to 'Akshully' this? We can go deeper!
29. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by TimMD909 · 2019-02-01 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  So once again, aliens are trying to take the jobs of Americans? Don't give me that "they're only doing the jobs Americans don't want to do." Pretty sure there's millions of Americans who'd like off a person or two...
30. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by PopeRatzo · 2019-02-01 03:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You're cherry-picking. 38.something K was ALL INJURIES to firearms, including suicides.
  Look again. It's not "injuries". 39,000 was the number of DEATHS by firearm. Mortality means death.
  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/press...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
31. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by PopeRatzo · 2019-02-01 03:36 · Score: 2
  
  When people kill themselves with a firearm, they may or may not have done it by other means.
  Well, we know for sure that rates of suicide go way up when there is easy access to firearms (especially handguns). This is not controversial. More guns = more suicide.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
32. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by drinkypoo · 2019-02-01 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Holy shit, did you just cite convicted defamers and political activist group SPLC in a "citation needed" link?
  Nope. They settled that case. And there's nothing even slightly illogical about citing a political activism group in such a case, either.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
33. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  The only sources I see 13,000 also peddle flat eartherism and pizzagate. I suspect your sources have a right wing political bias.
34. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  Most people would not consider this to include suicides. If a news headline said "US troops killed 2000 Americans in 2018", and then it turns out in the fine print they mean they committed suicide, most people would feel this to be dishonest.
  You can argue until the cows come home that "kill" by dictionary definition should include suicide, but we both know that this is not the implication to most people.
  Let me guess, you're the kind of person who would tell your spouse "no honey I didn't sleep with your friend" and think you were being clever because the two of you never actually fell asleep while fucking.
35. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 08:14 · Score: 0
  
  Facts don't care about your feelings, snowflake! Why is the right so triggered by observable reality?
36. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  Speaking of dishonest, this is not the claim Snopes is calling false. Have you looked in the mirror lately?
37. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  Please explain how he was dishonest? He quoted the CDC which you repubtards probably consider consider it "fake news".
  The topic was gun deaths. Not homicides and not suicides. Gun deaths. Even so 13000 vs 2000? It's far from a national emergency. We don't need a wall. We don't need to shut down our government for it.
  So please explain how he was lying. from my point of view it looks like you are another repubtard screaming fake news because you don't like the reality of the situation. So how do you LIVE with yourself?
38. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  We are not defining suicide or homicide you idiot. We are discussing gun deaths. Jesus Christ you are idiot. Stop trying to strawman your way out of this.
  On America there are 39,000+ gun deaths a year. Not honicides, not suicides, but overall gun deaths.
  We get it, you can't read sources and you don't know how to parse conversations. Leave already you are a burden. Since you have been here you have offered us nothing. Your best work is talking about drugs. The only experience you have in life. You are a failure in life and on slashdot. Go get high dude, cuz you are a raging repubtard.
39. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  What is their to address? Illegal immigrants don't kill more than home grown Americans. It's a simple fact. 2000 HOMICIDES a year compared to 13,000. Its not even fucking close.
40. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  There*
41. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  So you agree? It isn't illegals doing most the killings? But Americans themselves?
  See that wasn't hard, all I had to do was bring up black folks. The other group of people you hate. Fucking idiot fell for it hook line and sinker.
42. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 08:54 · Score: 0
  
  Go back and learn to read you fucking idiots: we were discussing GUN DEATHS. Not homicides, no suicides, BUT OVERALL gun deaths.
43. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Shotgun · 2019-02-01 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  And while we're trying to deal with the jackoffs killing 39,000, why would we want to add the problem of 2,000 more to the bunch?
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
44. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by Shotgun · 2019-02-01 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  You ARE trying out for a SNL part, aren't you!?
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
45. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by drinkypoo · 2019-02-01 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  You ARE trying out for a SNL part, aren't you!?
  You know that wasn't clever the first time you said it, right? It's no cleverer now.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
46. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by PopeRatzo · 2019-02-01 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  And while we're trying to deal with the jackoffs killing 39,000, why would we want to add the problem of 2,000 more to the bunch?
  The simple answer is that people in the United States illegally commit all crimes at a lower rate than American citizens. So, illegal immigrants actually bring down the crime rate.
  Don't you want to bring down the crime rate?
  But don't take it from me, take it from the conservative/libertarian Cato Institute:
  https://www.cato.org/blog/whit...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
47. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by rahvin112 · 2019-02-01 13:33 · Score: 0
  
  The rates of suicide do not go way up.
  Firearms do in general tend to result in more successful suicides where they are used, though there is intense debate about how much it affects it and whether it's statistically significant. But it has no effect on the base rate of suicides. People that are suicidal will simply use a different method, potentially something less likely to be lethal but on the other hand could endanger others such as jumping off bridges or in front of moving vehicles which can cause accidents and harm innocent people.
  Firearms have nothing to do with suicide or rates. They are simply a means. Suicide is not murder and it shouldn't be included with it's counted numbers of gun crime. No western nation counts suicides in the murder statistic except certain groups in the US, Europe and other nations recognize it's not murder and count it separately.
  It's entirely disingenuous to count firearm involved suicides as gun crime and doing so only damages your position on gun control. You should recognize that, because when you do it the people that know you are doing it disregard your comments as lies and exaggerations. Beyond this there is enough real gun crime that you shouldn't even need to muddle the statistics by counting suicides as gun crime.
48. Re: Remember it's not what is being said by PopeRatzo · 2019-02-01 13:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The rates of suicide do not go way up.
  Not only do they go way up, but they go way, way, WAY up.
  There is a definitive correlation between gun ownership rates and suicide rates.
  https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
Hey by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 11:14 · Score: 0

How'd you like a nice News Punch?
1. Re:Hey by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 02:09 · Score: 0
  
  Only if you're Hawaiian.
Even slashdot! by slashdice · 2019-01-31 11:16 · Score: 1

From now on, slashdot will be known as digg.com. Please update your bookmarks and muscle memory.

--
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
Cat and Mouse games. by Fly+Swatter · 2019-01-31 11:16 · Score: 1

This is all the internet has devolved into, for pretty much everything on the internet.
1. Re:Cat and Mouse games. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 11:40 · Score: 0
  
  Except GitHub. There's still some sanity there.
  And quiet forums where real software developers quietly develop things.
2. Re:Cat and Mouse games. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  One false assertion accepted queers the entire barrel. So accepting as true ---- nibbers & gaffots are equal to straight white yeomanry --- is sufficient to destroy western culture. Chew on that Bosco while you blojob the local Trotsky-slut beaner hero.
Be carefull by Computer_kid · 2019-01-31 11:21 · Score: 1

Bu55feed.com or Buzzfee6.com will become the new Paypa1.com
SubjectsSuck by aardvarkjoe · 2019-01-31 11:21 · Score: 0, Flamebait

This is what happens when your "fact checkers" are looking at the source of the information instead of the content.
I suggest that the "workaround" should be to have your fact checkers, you know, check the facts.

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
1. Re:SubjectsSuck by Knightman · 2019-01-31 11:33 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Do you have a citation for your assertion that fact checkers don't check the facts?
  Also, if a site creates news that has not bearing on the truth that site should get black-holed in my opinion - even though they may have real news too. This is because otherwise you legitimize the made up shit by saying "But! They have real news too!"
  
  --
  --- Reality doesn't care about your opinions, it happens anyway and if you are in the way you'll get squished.
2. Re:SubjectsSuck by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  The real problem is "real" news sites that post commentary masquerading as hard news. Commentary can be opinionated and potentially cherry pick some facts over others. News is supposed to be even handed and give facts, regardless of if they support a narrative or not. So long as a source clearly distinguishes commentary from news reporting, it shouldn't matter if a "fact" checker agrees or not with the commentary postings. Especially since you can be 100% factual while ignoring 99% of the facts that tell a different story.
  Which is something that the so called fact checkers often do to introduce bias. Things such as saying "while completely true when X said Y, new facts not known (by anybody) until 6 weeks later disproved Y, so X lied by not being psychic. While on other stories supporting a different narrative, they'll simply state "everything they said was true" while ignoring that there is clear factual evidence that was omitted which actually tells a completely different story. Fact checking is like statistics. You can pick and choose the data points to skew the results any way you so desire.
3. Re:SubjectsSuck by Jon+Howard · 2019-01-31 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  But blackholed by who, exactly? Who would you trust with that power over controlling the Official Truth?
4. Re: SubjectsSuck by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  You really are dumb. Its obvious if you could actually deduce anything rather then having someone tell you what to believe that the OP was using THIS story as the source. It literally said in the summary that because they changed their name the same stories were no longer marked as fake. Meaning, to any one with the IQ of a parrot that the fact checker wasnt checking the content but the source.
5. Re:SubjectsSuck by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 12:08 · Score: 0
  
  Obviously not by an idiot like you.
  Faggot.
6. Re: SubjectsSuck by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 12:08 · Score: 0
  
  Idiot. Lets close all the newspapers that publish horoscopes.
7. Re:SubjectsSuck by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  The real problem is "real" news sites that post commentary masquerading as hard news.
  No, because any serious news site has news in the "news" section and commentary in the "op-ed" section. Just because you are too dumb to know what section you are reading doesn't mean that you are right.
  
  Especially since you can be 100% factual while ignoring 99% of the facts that tell a different story.
  And every fact-checker I have seen will mark it as unreliable, citing that while that 1% fact told is correct, it fails to mention the other 99%. It is not our fault that you are using alternative-facts-checker.com
Most important question by SuperKendall · 2019-01-31 11:26 · Score: -1, Troll

Was the content actually false? It's not like Snopes is infallible.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Most important question by PopeRatzo · 2019-01-31 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  Was the content actually false? It's not like Snopes is infallible.
  The difference between factcheckers (including sites like Snopes) is that they'll actually give checkable citations for the facts they check. And if someday you find an error, they'll publish a retraction/correction.
  You're not going to get any retraction or correction from patriotictruth.ru
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
2. Re:Most important question by JamesNorton · 2019-01-31 12:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Was the content actually false? It's not like Snopes is infallible.
  The difference between factcheckers (including sites like Snopes) is that they'll actually give checkable citations for the facts they check. And if someday you find an error, they'll publish a retraction/correction.
  You're not going to get any retraction or correction from patriotictruth.ru
  The problem with fact checking sites such as Snopes is *what* they cite to verify something to be true or not. Any bias on the part of the fact checkers will likely also bias what they cite. Feel free to mark this comment as "Troll", but Snopes isn't exactly unbiased.
3. Re: Most important question by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 13:46 · Score: 0
  
  That's a laugh. There are plenty of Snopes entries which are marked as either True or False but which, upon reading, are completely undecided, or are using citation sources which directly contradict the Snopes conclusion.
4. Re:Most important question by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 14:01 · Score: 0
  
  [citation needed]
5. Re:Most important question by PopeRatzo · 2019-01-31 14:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Snopes isn't exactly unbiased
  Nor should you expect it to be. Think about this: it doesn't matter the bias of the factchecker because everyone is biased. What matters is accuracy and accountability. Do they supply multiple sources for their claims? Are they willing to revisit and correct and retract? That's what it takes to be a reliable fact checker. It just so happens that there are more of such sites on the Left. And that, ultimately, is because there currently exists an ascendant class on the Right that benefits disproportionately from fake news. If you need me to provide citations and examples, I'd be happy to do so, but I'm guessing that you understand what I say is true.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
6. Re:Most important question by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 14:17 · Score: 0
  
  Well, they had quotes about your love-making skills from an assortment of Russian hookers in an article on the latest plumbing regulations so you tell us.
  Whatever you say, we can rely on it being false.
7. Re: Most important question by pslytely+psycho · 2019-01-31 15:52 · Score: 0
  
  " There are plenty of Snopes entries which are marked as either True or False but which, upon reading, are completely undecided, or are using citation sources which directly contradict the Snopes conclusion."
  
  And yet, you fail to cite even a single instance...
  
  --
  Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
8. Re:Most important question by bongey · 2019-01-31 19:09 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  When their fact checking is influenced by their bias they are nothing but biased editorial pushing a narrative.
9. Re:Most important question by PopeRatzo · 2019-01-31 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  When their fact checking is influenced by their bias they are nothing but biased editorial pushing a narrative.
  That's why accuracy and accountability matter. That's why sources matter, and why their willingness to correct and retract when necessary matter.
  Everyone is biased. You just need a little discernment.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
10. Re:Most important question by serviscope_minor · 2019-01-31 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone is biased. You just need a little discernment.
  It's just an aspect of puritanical thinking. It divides the world into purely good and bad with no shades of grey. It's like, steal bread to eat, well, you're going to hell to be tortured for all eternity. Go on a mass murdering spree? Well, you're going to hell to be tortured for all eternity.
  The mindset has no nuance, and no shades of grey. And it leads people to dismiss good but imperfect things like fact checkers. Because if it's not RIGHT then it's WRONG and there's nothing inbetween that. And that makes snopes as bad as honestnews.kremlin.ru because they're both WRONG.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
11. Re:Most important question by Shotgun · 2019-02-01 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Except, that "fact checkers" have been held up as infallible arbiters of truth with lines like, "We know Trump lied, because Snopes said...."
  I agree with you that it is puritanical thinking, but in this case the thinking is that Snopes gave them bad ratings, so they must be fake news.
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
12. Re:Most important question by serviscope_minor · 2019-02-01 21:39 · Score: 0
  
  Except, that "fact checkers" have been held up as infallible arbiters of truth with lines like,
  No they have not been held up as infallible. You're doing the whole puritanical thing of dividing the world starkly into perfect and worthless.
  "We know Trump lied, because Snopes said...."
  Trump lies much of the time. Snopes is right most of the time. The vast majority of times people have pitted Snopes against Trump and claimed Trump lied, they were right, Trump did.
  Snopes is sometimes wrong, but they issue corrections and retractions.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Fact-Check==Ministry of Truth by Jarwulf · 2019-01-31 11:34 · Score: -1, Troll

We're now in the process of developing a real life Ministry of Truth consisting of a small gang of self-appointed tech, media, and political organizations that will decide for everyone what 'truth' you get to hear. And everybody is okay with this because Russia 'hacked' the election by releasing negative information that nobody's ever denied but they got it without the Dem's permission so it should be disregarded.
1. Re:Fact-Check==Ministry of Truth by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen your truth. It's more like madness. A clawing ball of hatred where everyone but yourself is to blame for whatever imagined ill afflicts you.
  Calm down and take stock of your life before you go too far down the rabbit hole.
2. Re: Fact-Check==Ministry of Truth by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 11:56 · Score: 0
  
  Huh? It's Facebook! When's the last time you used Facebook? Ministry 9f Truth would be a government thing.
3. Re:Fact-Check==Ministry of Truth by retchdog · 2019-01-31 12:02 · Score: 2
  
  i mean, yeah, or you can just get news somewhere other than facebook.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
4. Re: Fact-Check==Ministry of Truth by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 12:15 · Score: 0
  
  B-b-b-but Hillary said Facebook is why she lost the election. Well okay, Facebook was only one of the 47 or so reasons she gave, but still...
What if I don't trust Snopes? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 11:41 · Score: -1

Why should the Soros funded site Snopes be the arbiter what content I choose to consume?
1. Re:What if I don't trust Snopes? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 12:46 · Score: 0
  
  They shouldn't be the arbiter. Mainly because "the Soros funded site Snopes" doesn't exist. There's just the regular Snopes site, sorry.
2. Re:What if I don't trust Snopes? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 20:34 · Score: 0
  
  You mean to say that Soros does not give money to Snopes?
3. Re: What if I don't trust Snopes? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  Who gives a shit. Google gives money to Apple. Trump gets money from contractors.
  Shit, the ducking BSD foundations biggest contributor has been Microsoft lately.
Heatstreet? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 11:43 · Score: 0

they did a lot of propaganda work in concert with facebook to attack Trump during the election, but screwed up the technical side and allowed people to discover they were a washington PR firm pushing BS.
They still post all the time on NBC.com, CNN.com! by WCMI92 · 2019-01-31 11:44 · Score: -1, Troll

Of course not everything posted there is fake. Most of it anyway. But when it comes to Trump the mainstream media just can't help itself...

--
Corporatism != Free Market
So What's Fake? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 11:53 · Score: 0

Please tell me what is Fake News at https://newspunch.com/.
The media has co-opted the term Fake News to smear anything that isn't the approved narrative.
Working on the wrong problem. by davmoo · 2019-01-31 11:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Fake news is a problem. But the bigger problem is a whole lot of Americans are too effing stupid to figure it out for themselves that it's fake.

--
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
1. Re: Working on the wrong problem. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 12:03 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Not at all. They did not let Clinton win, after all. That already shows a lot of common sense on part of the American people.
2. Re:Working on the wrong problem. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 12:25 · Score: 0
  
  It's not stupidity. People want to believe the lies because they are outraged. Their outrage is cultivated by all news outlets everywhere. Greed is the problem here. Follow the money to soulless, "money first" news and advertising corporations. Money first, the truth second.
3. Re:Working on the wrong problem. by drinkypoo · 2019-01-31 12:29 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Fake news is a problem. But the bigger problem is a whole lot of Americans are too effing stupid to figure it out for themselves that it's fake.
  Yeah, but Fb couldn't do anything about that if it wanted to. And it doesn't; smart people wouldn't give them all their info, tag people in photos, etc.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
4. Re:Working on the wrong problem. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 12:46 · Score: 0
  
  The 'fake news' itself is just part of it. It's the vast armies of bots and the troll farms that steer them. They retweet, repost, algorithm bump the fake news posts to build and artificial sense of consensus and legitimacy.
  Humans have a very real weakness for wanting to think and feel what others do. They'll be influenced by anything they see often enough, real or not.
  Spend any time on twitter or facebook and you'll see this crazy stuff. Follow the post chain and you'll find these accounts that repost and retweet and hashtag this stuff all day long. Hundreds of posts a day, weeks on end. From everywhere.
  These accounts aren't real. Most of the time they're hijacked accounts from some old grandma. Dig deep enough and you'll find normal posts from a normal person, than an abrupt shift in to full political extremism over a broad range of topics. (This is when the account was hacked)
5. Re:Working on the wrong problem. by rtb61 · 2019-01-31 12:52 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  No such thing as fake news, until it is proven to be fake in the courts. Snopes is a fake as the rest, with their own political ideological interpretation of what they believe to be true and what they believe to be false.
  US corporate main stream media is the fakest of the lot, not news some real some false, a fake news organisation when in reality they are nothing but corporate America propagandists, along with Google and Facebook and M$, pack of lying shit stains.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
6. Re:Working on the wrong problem. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 13:02 · Score: 0
  
  Fake news is a problem. But the bigger problem is a whole lot of Americans are too effing stupid to figure it out for themselves that it's fake.
  Smug and arrogant, you are.
  Know what's really real when news has been disseminated by your masters, you do not.
  Proof of this you say you want ?
  Gulf of Tonkin.
  Saddam's WMDs.
  Thalidomide is perfectly safe.
  Martin Luther King was shot by James Earl Ray ( in reality an FBI sharpshooter took King out ).
  See the point, slick ? You think you're superior but you aren't. It's not that hard for you to be fooled either. And you don't even know when it happens.
  I bet you still think the Apollo moon landings were real.
7. Re:Working on the wrong problem. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 13:37 · Score: 0
  
  No such thing as fake news, until it is proven to be fake in the courts. Snopes is a fake as the rest, with their own political ideological interpretation of what they believe to be true and what they believe to be false.
  US corporate main stream media is the fakest of the lot, not news some real some false, a fake news organisation when in reality they are nothing but corporate America propagandists, along with Google and Facebook and M$, pack of lying shit stains.
  so you are an asshole until you take me to court
8. Re:Working on the wrong problem. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 13:52 · Score: 0
  
  Or to put it another way, "people are the problem".
  That may feel like a useful insight, but in fact it's the primal starting point. All political systems are designed on that as a base assumption - their whole reason for existence is to work around it. If "people are [still] the problem" after that, then all that tells you is that your system is imperfect, which I don't think gets us very far at all.
9. Re:Working on the wrong problem. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 14:53 · Score: 0
  
  +1 troll
  I suppose science is fake too, it's just a tool used to push liberal agenda.
10. Re:Working on the wrong problem. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 18:15 · Score: 0
  
  ... figure it out for themselves that it's fake.
  
  The wisdom is "don't believe everything thing you read". Facebook proves many people don't do that. Anyone claiming "I know the truth" will be believed, which makes publishing first a powerful influence on the narrative.
  The worse problem is that Facebook fake news is more than disinformation, like the ranting of a certain US president is. Facebook news is designed for poor people to make money and they do it by telling gullible readers they're a victim and they need to 'fight the government' now. That aggression is more palatable in a country where rich people repeatedly shout "evil government". The consequence is confrontations like Charlottesville.
11. Re:Working on the wrong problem. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 19:41 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it's as simple as that, propaganda has been effective since the dawn of humanity, and it's naive to believe there's just some magic switch we can flip to suddenly make it ineffective.
  What's really needed is for today's intelligence agencies to be much more dynamic; they weren't ready for 9/11 and the level of terrorist threat, it took them a decade to get to a position where they can tackle that kind of threat, only in that decade we've seen resurgence of Russian intelligence operations in the West, and it now looks like it's going to take a decade to get to a point where they can deal with that.
  Really, we should stop beating about the bush and stop letting things be rebranded, for example, the alt-right is just the far-right, and fake news is just propaganda. We already have names for these things, and we already have solutions, so we should use them. "Fake news sites" should be treated as propaganda outlets and be fair game to counter-intelligence operations just as any other propaganda mechanism throughout history would. That means those operating fake news sites should be treated as foreign agents and handled appropriately, because really, that's all they are no matter how much they may wish to try and rebrand what they're doing as something legitimate.
  Really, this is equivalent to the "on the internet" joke around patents, whereby there's a common thing, yet somehow people think if they do it on the internet instead, it's somehow magically different when it's not and the original patent still applies. It's similarly the case with questions around AI and self-driving cars; "How do we decide who is to blame if an AI crashes?"; well, we already have been figuring out responsibility based on a set of rules when humans do it, and if you take a step back and think about it they still make sense in situations with AIs too.
  Technology is confusing people where it really shouldn't because when it comes too nothing has really changed, only the mechanism of implementation has, and some people and nation states are taking advantage of that confusion, fake news, aka propaganda, is just one of those many things.
12. Re:Working on the wrong problem. by AmiMoJo · 2019-01-31 23:09 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure being smarter is the solution. In the past we saw that the fake news sites upped their game, creating entire fake news networks and brands to add credibility. People who post intelligent technical comments on Slashdot also push fake news too, so it doesn't seem to be a universal cure anyway.
  It's probably going to be like spam and phishing emails - we will eventually get on top of it, but it will take time and be a constant battle.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
13. Re:Working on the wrong problem. by SunTzuWarmaster · 2019-02-01 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if the Gutenberg press was the beginning of propaganda papers, and if there was a time when people believed that it was true only because it was printed. Certainly there was a time when people regarded everything on the internet as accurate. Did such a time exist for the TV?
14. Re:Working on the wrong problem. by tlhIngan · 2019-02-01 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure being smarter is the solution. In the past we saw that the fake news sites upped their game, creating entire fake news networks and brands to add credibility. People who post intelligent technical comments on Slashdot also push fake news too, so it doesn't seem to be a universal cure anyway.
  Exactly. It's too easy to push fake news even inadvertently. It's usually not the fault of the person, just incomplete knowledge.
  Even worse, once someone believes in something, it's very difficult to actually convince them otherwise, even with proof. It usually just causes them to dig in further, no matter how much the cognitive dissonance.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
15. Re: Working on the wrong problem. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  The people didn't elect trump,
  The electoral did. Nice try. Which in all its existence, has only ever elected two presidents, both of them republican.
16. Re: Working on the wrong problem. by Highdude702 · 2019-02-01 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure you meant Electoral College. And in fact it has elected every president since its inception.
Integrity initiative also had rebranded! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 12:01 · Score: 0

The British organization abandoned its headquarters, apparently. I hope they still provide their fact-cheque-ing to the interested journalists and politicians.
Gatekeeping by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 12:11 · Score: 0

So are articles about religon fake news blocked as well?
So, truthiness depends ... by PPH · 2019-01-31 12:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

... on the source domain? Not a really sound test IMO.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:So, truthiness depends ... by AmiMoJo · 2019-01-31 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  Facebook has a simple blacklist of known fake news sites where they automatically label anything from those domains as suspect when posted. So just like spam blacklists, the work-around is to change domains.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
2. Re:So, truthiness depends ... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  Don't be daft.
  It's the literal first step to further validation for this topic.
  ( Poor example coming...)
  If www.cnm.com is flagged as a false site, in lieu of www.cnn.com ... for the url reference for the story Facebook is checking, that is step one.
  If the story is on www.cnn.com, that desn't mean it is verified as true automatically. But it is the first phase of further validation that is going to be required for the next step. Which is presumably author, then topic, then content...
  At least I hope. Facebook isn't throwing several Billion at this, so... while they've certainly been playing up the lip service on the importance of this, let's be real. They have oodles of money to throw at this, if they wanted to. The degree to which they respond, is only pressed by public, or Government pressure. And that isn't much at the moment.
fact-checking outlets like Snopes by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 12:38 · Score: 0

That's fucking rich. Don't trust a website ran by someone who has a fat cat.
1. Re: fact-checking outlets like Snopes by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  But trump is totally trustworthy right?
post by FunkSoulBrother · 2019-01-31 12:48 · Score: 0

Post
1. Re:post by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 13:11 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, ASSHOLE --
  you STOLE your name from ME !!!!
  ----------- Rockafeller Skank
2. Re:post by FunkSoulBrother · 2019-02-01 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Post your 5 digit UID then, its been a long fucking time since 1999
DNC legalized killing live babies by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 14:09 · Score: -1

NY just legalized killing a baby, brought to full term, born fully alive, and then being killed and called an "abortion".
For those pointing out "for health of mother", the consider mental health of mother who says she is too stressed to be good enough, after 40 weeks.
Congrats. Your side just lost ALL moral debates on ANY issue.
Hope you enjoy having this issue brought up every time you try and make a moral argument ever again, because I will bring it up EVERY SINGLE TIME.
1. Re:DNC legalized killing live babies by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 14:19 · Score: 0
  
  Democrats would rather burn the entire party to ashes by doubling down rather than once in their entire lives telling the radical leftists in their party to go pound sand. Feminism is a virus.
2. Re:DNC legalized killing live babies by PopeRatzo · 2019-01-31 14:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  NY just legalized killing a baby, brought to full term, born fully alive, and then being killed and called an "abortion".
  For those of you playing along at home, that statement is what's known as "bullshit".
  https://www.bbc.com/news/world...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
3. Re:DNC legalized killing live babies by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  NY just legalized killing a baby, brought to full term, born fully alive, and then being killed and called an "abortion".
  
  Well how else are we supposed to appease Cthulu, Mr. Smarty Pants?
  The world could use more child sacrifice. Teach the little brats some manners.
4. Re:DNC legalized killing live babies by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  It that you, Tucker Carlson?
Trying to imagine a religious fake news item by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 14:18 · Score: 0

Like, The Second Coming finally happened?
You can't miss it news or not news.
Good. Fighting anti-conservative bias by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 14:31 · Score: 0

Facebook and Google have deep anti-conservative bias and work to do nothing but shut down real journalism anytime it opposes there libtard ideology. I applaud these companies for doing whatever it takes to get the truth out, no matter to whom it angers for.
1. Re: Good. Fighting anti-conservative bias by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  Google and Facebook aren't news sites you idiot, and if you are going to them for news, than that says a lot about you.
Good Question by Crashmarik · 2019-01-31 15:12 · Score: 1, Informative

Especially with CNN
https://dailycaller.com/2018/0...
Or more to the point their deliberate fabrication of the news
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...
1. Re:Good Question by pslytely+psycho · 2019-01-31 15:34 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously, you're using the DailyFail as your source that CNN fabricates news?
  
  You forgot the /s tag....
  
  --
  Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
2. Re:Good Question by Crashmarik · 2019-01-31 15:46 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Yeah what are you going to believe your lying eyes or your bias.
3. Re:Good Question by pslytely+psycho · 2019-01-31 16:07 · Score: 0
  
  If that's the best source you can come up with, I'll take "my bias" for $100 Alex.
  
  Everybody is biased, no exceptions. Irrelevant argument.
  
  As for your sources. Not wasting my time or bandwidth.
  
  --
  Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
4. Re:Good Question by Crashmarik · 2019-01-31 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  If that's the best source you can come up with, I'll take "my bias" for $100 Alex.
  Well looks like your bias won and is running the show in your head. That wasn't the only source and if you hit duck duck go you can find all you like saying the same.
5. Re:Good Question by pslytely+psycho · 2019-01-31 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  Idiot. I have DDG, I simply won't waste time with someone who chooses the most biased of all as their source.
  I am a solid centrist who reads all sides of the issue, but simply won't bother with tabloids or those who promote them.
  I didn't question the facts, only who you chose to link too.
  BTW, Elvis was not abducted by aliens.
  
  You showed your bias up front, I'll give you that, but only that.
  
  You are now dismissed.
  
  --
  Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
6. Re: Good Question by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 00:07 · Score: 0
  
  You want us to believe your lying words and your bias, but considering that we can see both on rampant display, why would we be that dumb?
  Next you'll be trying to make a pediatric surgeon's explanation of how nonviable births are treated as some call to murder. Oh Wait no, that is already all over your source.
7. Re:Good Question by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  LMAO who promoted you to aspie king?
8. Re:Good Question by Crashmarik · 2019-02-01 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  You are now dismissed.
  
  LOL it's so cute when emotional two year olds try smug and condescending especially after saying a bunch of things meant to make them feel good about themselves.
9. Re:Good Question by pslytely+psycho · 2019-02-02 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Perfect response to someone acting like a two year old. So what's your point child?
  
  --
  Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
10. Re:Good Question by Crashmarik · 2019-02-02 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Some points out your acting like a child and your response is
  
  Nanana That's you what am I
  
  Q.E.D.
11. Re:Good Question by pslytely+psycho · 2019-02-02 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Hardly.
  But hey, it it gets you through the night.
  You acted like an idiot child, so I responded to you as though you were.
  You have said nothing since that makes me change my mind.
  
  --
  Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
12. Re:Good Question by Crashmarik · 2019-02-02 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  Hardly.
  But hey, it it gets you through the night.
  You acted like an idiot child, so I responded to you as though you were.
  You have said nothing since that makes me change my mind.
  
  LOL what kind of idiot are you ? to think anyone would ever believe you are capable of changing your mind ?
  Especially after you loudly proclaimed you don't care about evidence or what you can see in your first post ?
  I am not here to change your mind. I am here to mock you so you serve as an example to others.
13. Re:Good Question by pslytely+psycho · 2019-02-02 18:04 · Score: 1
  
  I only questioned your source, not the evidence.
  Linking to tabloid news is just silly and I won't take anything there seriously. I would of had respect for it presented on *AP, or hell, even Fox news. But not a tabloid.
  
  And you know nothing of me.
  
  Let's change that shall we?
  My main news page I use is: https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news That gives perspectives from L/C/R, I find the C tends to be the least sensationalist without the rampant vitriol of either the L or R.
  I own a Colt 1911 because shooting twice is silly.
  I tend to vote the most centrist candidate regardless of party.
  I live in WA (state not DC and no we are not part of Canada) where the weed shops are cheaper than the nearly extinct black market was.
  I drive a '95 Vette because it's fun to drive, married so it would be worthless to own if it wasn't fun.
  Married 34 years, 3 kids 6 grand-kids.
  Show me reputable evidence, not in a tabloid and my mind is open. How much it changes my worldview is entirely based on how impactful I think it is.
  
  Truce?
  
  Good day to you and have a better tomorrow.
  
  *for example, anything other than tabloid news. Facts mixed with Alien Child Born In Secret. I just don't respect tabloids, period.
  
  --
  Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
14. Re:Good Question by Crashmarik · 2019-02-02 19:24 · Score: 1
  
  only questioned your source, not the evidence.
  Linking to tabloid news is just silly and I won't take anything there seriously. I would of had respect for it presented on *AP, or hell, even Fox news. But not a tabloid.
  Bullshit.
15. Re:Good Question by pslytely+psycho · 2019-02-03 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Not bullshit.
  I never once questioned anything but the source. As I refuse to visit a tabloid how could I question the evidence if I never saw it.
  Oh well.
  
  Peace out man.
  
  --
  Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
If It isn't Slashdot's king of Fake News by Crashmarik · 2019-01-31 15:23 · Score: 0

The exception would allow women to have an abortion for up to nine months of pregnancy for “age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of ‘health’ that normally comes to mind,”

Good job as always.
1. Re:If It isn't Slashdot's king of Fake News by PopeRatzo · 2019-01-31 17:40 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Good job as always.
  Uh, thank you?
  And by the way, "up to nine months of pregnancy" is not the same as "born fully alive".
  The new law does not allow aborting a pregnancy after the baby has been born. No part of the law says anything like that and saying that it does is a) bearing false witness, and b) blood libel. Also, fuck you and your god-bothering bullshit. If you want a christian version of sharia law that bad, there are countries you can go to.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
2. Re:If It isn't Slashdot's king of Fake News by Crashmarik · 2019-01-31 18:02 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  And by the way, "up to nine months of pregnancy" is not the same as "born fully alive".
  It's a baby and it's alive dude. It can survive on its own and there is no medical reason to kill the baby
3. Re:If It isn't Slashdot's king of Fake News by PopeRatzo · 2019-01-31 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  It's a baby and it's alive dude.
  
  Why are you discounting childbirth as a meaningful event? We count them as babies when they are born. Anything else is just religious woo.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
4. Re:If It isn't Slashdot's king of Fake News by Crashmarik · 2019-01-31 20:09 · Score: 2
  
  It's a baby and it's alive dude.
  Why are you discounting childbirth as a meaningful event? We count them as babies when they are born. Anything else is just religious woo.
  I need a my face reaction for that. Just what is the magic of exiting the birth canal that makes a baby human when it wasn't 30 minutes before ?
5. Re:If It isn't Slashdot's king of Fake News by Highdude702 · 2019-02-01 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  Liberal agendas. You didn't know?
6. Re:If It isn't Slashdot's king of Fake News by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 00:46 · Score: 0
  
  Are you literally defending abortion being ok at 9 months as the mother is giving birth?
  I posted this on another thread, but its actually a pattern now. These "leftists" are posting such complete idiotic stuff that I'm having a difficult time believe they are this dumb. I've never met someone who has made such a stupid argument. Is Poperatzo really a Borat? Pretending to be such a stupid leftist that no one could possibly agree with him? I don't think there is any other possible interpretation of his post.
  Just remember, when PopeRatzo complains about your right to carry a gun for self defense this is the SAME guy who advocates for killing babies as they are born at 9 months if the mother claims to be too poor to care for it.
  Don't let him post anything ever when he acts morally superior without bringing this up.
7. Re: If It isn't Slashdot's king of Fake News by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 00:54 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, somebody thinks that making babies is magical! No wonder you go around screaming about women being ebul witches so much.
  The law doesn't actually do what you in your deliberately malicious falseness claim it does. I know, I know, you would have to read the law to find out, but you won't since it is easier to make up shit that you can scream about on AM radio.
  Remember when it was birth control pills and secret Kenyan Muslim Anticolonialists? You know? TUESDAY!
8. Re:If It isn't Slashdot's king of Fake News by PopeRatzo · 2019-02-01 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  I need a my face reaction for that. Just what is the magic of exiting the birth canal that makes a baby human when it wasn't 30 minutes before?
  We call that magic "childbirth" and if you've ever been there for one, you know why it's magic.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
9. Re:If It isn't Slashdot's king of Fake News by PopeRatzo · 2019-02-01 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  Are you literally defending abortion being ok at 9 months as the mother is giving birth?
  I'm defending the notion that it's the mother's choice. I'm defending the notion that it's none of your goddamn business, or the goddamn business of the government. I'm defending reproduction as being a personal decision and not one that christian busybody jackoffs get to decide because they've invented some biblical justification.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
10. Re:If It isn't Slashdot's king of Fake News by Crashmarik · 2019-02-01 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  My kids were delivered by c section I guess they aren't human in your book.
11. Re:If It isn't Slashdot's king of Fake News by Shotgun · 2019-02-01 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  If the mother chooses to dump the baby in the dumpster on the way home from giving birth, why should the government interfere in that?
  If I choose to not support a baby I fathered, why should the government interfere in that?
  You're complete lack of logic and apologies for infanticide are stifling.
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
12. Re:If It isn't Slashdot's king of Fake News by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously dude, get some help.
13. Re:If It isn't Slashdot's king of Fake News by PopeRatzo · 2019-02-01 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  No, they were born. One minute they were inside, part of the mother's body and then they were outside, individual human beings.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
14. Re:If It isn't Slashdot's king of Fake News by PopeRatzo · 2019-02-01 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  If the mother chooses to dump the baby in the dumpster on the way home from giving birth, why should the government interfere in that?
  Because we all agree that would be murder. Once the baby is born, it is an individual, indisputable human being.
  Why do the anti-choice people always fantasize so much about murdering newborns? I mean, it's like a thing with you people.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
15. Re:If It isn't Slashdot's king of Fake News by Crashmarik · 2019-02-01 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  I am sorry but a child is never part of the mothers body
  You need to learn what a placenta is
Lying with Statistics by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 17:27 · Score: -1

Yup, you're pulling a Snopes quality lie. You claimed "jackoffs with guns kill over 39,000 Americans per year." Yet, 2/3 of those are suicides. Oh, and you try to buttress your claim by saying it's CY2018, but the CDC website blatantly shows only 2017 and older data.
Stop lying, you leftist fuck.
Domain Blacklist? Kind of Simple for Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 19:28 · Score: 0

Do you mean to tell me that the best thing that those obscenely overpaid Facebook engineers could come up with to filter out fake news sites a simple domain blacklist? Is that what passes for "artificial intelligence" these days?
Here's a fact by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 20:40 · Score: 0

The earth is flat prove me wrong fake mainstream media
Hier is een feit by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-31 20:45 · Score: 0

De aarde is plat Mainstream is fake as f*ck
Changing name to FaKeBook by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 01:35 · Score: 0

Facebook is a travesty to American values with its leftist censorship. It should change its
domainname to faKebook.commie.
Most fake news is from "trusted" leftist sources by walterbyrd · 2019-02-01 01:55 · Score: 0

Jussie Smollett story from TMZ now appears to be a hate hoax.
Story about Covington high, from New York Times, school was grossly misreported.
Buzzfeed story about Trump telling Cohen to lie was purely fake news.
Seriously, Infowars is vastly more reliable than most leftist sources.
Oh, no! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 03:19 · Score: 0

The top story on NewsPunch.org right now is âoe20 things to do in Austin with kidsâ! Be sure not to follow their advice, the kids will hate these! ;-) Some of those places may not even exist.
Operation Mockingbird by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 04:24 · Score: 0

jews own facebook and the media keke
Re:Most fake news is from "trusted" leftist source by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 04:50 · Score: 0

Jussie Smollett story from TMZ now appears to be a hate hoax.
Not surprised about that. MAGA hat wearers don't actually use the acronym. They like to say the whole thing spelled out.
Re: Most fake news is from "trusted" leftist sourc by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-01 09:05 · Score: 0

Buzzfeed and TMZ aren't news you fucking idiots.
You repubtards are so fucking stupid, I don't get it. You come here screaming "buzzfeed, Facebook, etc here conservatives fake news sites" all while ignoring these sites aren't trustworthy news sites. They are all clickbait sites. Jesus Christ. Get your news from a real news organization and stop crying that the world hates you for being a racist fuckoff.
Misrepresent ? by Crashmarik · 2019-02-01 22:39 · Score: 1

Lets see

I don't like it
I didn't read what it said so I just made something up
I didn't actually bother to look
Didn't like it so I wasn't going to bother

No wasn't misrepresenting what you said. The AC did a fine job.
If you'd like more they just called the Democrat Governor of Virginia a Republican because he was caught wearing blackface (everybody knows democrats don't make fun of shvartses LOL) and before that they went with Michael Cohen being ordered to lie to congress which even Mueller facepalmed at.
Just face the fact youre a tribal ass
Ads by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-02 09:48 · Score: 0

All you have to do is look at the ads on mainstream "news" sites to start to question their credibility as organizations. Their ads are no better than the ones on Infowars or Breitbart.
CNN and FOX? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-04 01:53 · Score: 0

So News stations like CNN and FOX are changing their names? Why can't we have news that reports the news and stop putting a far left/right spin on it?