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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
Have gnu, will travel.
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.'"
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});
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.
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/...
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.