Slashdot Mirror
Fake News Sites Are Changing Their Domain Name To Get Around Facebook Fact-Checkers (mashable.com)
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.
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.
This is all the internet has devolved into, for pretty much everything on the internet.
Bu55feed.com or Buzzfee6.com will become the new Paypa1.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But blackholed by who, exactly? Who would you trust with that power over controlling the Official Truth?
"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.
i mean, yeah, or you can just get news somewhere other than facebook.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
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."
Have gnu, will travel.
American jackoffs with guns kill over 39,000 Americans per year.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.'"
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.
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
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.
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});
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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/...
And who can forget...
https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan-phillips-video
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Luckily FoxNews will say FoxNews.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Liberal agendas. You didn't know?
Shut up Racist!!
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.'"
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'"
I prefer CNNNN https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
My kids were delivered by c section I guess they aren't human in your book.
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
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
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
You ARE trying out for a SNL part, aren't you!?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
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
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.'"
Post your 5 digit UID then, its been a long fucking time since 1999
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.
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.
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.
I am sorry but a child is never part of the mothers body
You need to learn what a placenta is
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.
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.
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.
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