I remember when sites parroting trump's claim of being wiretapped was labelled fake news, now we are trying to determine how the FBI got the FISA warrant to wiretap Trump.
The FISA warrant was to wiretap Carter Page, not Donald Trump. And since Donald Trump and his spokespeople have said on numerous occasions that Carter Page was a "nobody", I don't see how Trump could have been caught in such a warrant.
The story that "Trump was wiretapped" is fake news.
So basically in their methodology, the effluence of semi-official propaganda organs is described as "real news";
No again. Nothing in the study describes (or mentions) "real news". There is a set of criteria which are indicative of fake news. If a site meets a certain threshold for those criteria, then it was eligible for inclusion in the seed group.
Please stop mis-characterizing this work. Or if you're going to mis-characterize it, try to find a basis that is not so easily refuted by the actual study, which is freely available and makes its methodology clear.
The final list was chosen by humans. Humans are biased. This will cause issues.
It's more than just a group of "humans" sitting around and picking sites at random.
From the study:
Sources of junk news were evaluated and reevaluated in a rigorously iterative coding process. A team of 12 trained coders, familiar with the US political and media landscape, labeled sources of news and information based on a grounded typology. The Krippendorff’s alpha value for inter-coder reliability among three executive coders, who developed the grounded typology, was 0.805. The 91 sources of political news and information, which we identified over the course of several years of research and monitoring, produce content that includes various forms of propaganda and ideologically extreme, hyper-partisan, and conspiratorial political information. We tracked how the URLs to these websites were being shared
Their typology is interesting to say the least. It includes professionalism and style.
It includes a lot more than professionalism and style. There is a larger set of criteria, and the sites had to fit ALL of the criteria to be included in the seed group.
You are cherry-picking sentence fragments from the study in order to spread misinformation about it.
CNN amongst others would fall into 3 of those categories easily.
Which three? Remember, the sites had to meet ALL of the criteria in order to qualify for the seed group.
The point of my post was to show that they started with a 'known' list of sites, and not ALL sites with an objective standard.
Except that's not what they did at all. Your still arguing from what you want the study say rather than what the study says. You are a good example of the study's findings.
So basically in their methodology, the effluence of semi-official propaganda organs is described as "real news"; and dissenting views are labeled "fake news".
No, that's not even close. They didn't describe "real news" at all, only "fake news" which had to fit a set of very specific criteria, including 1) the lack of transparency in listing the names of the authors, 2) whether they illustrated their stories with lots of capital letters, memes, emotional language, etc., 3) Not listing sources or giving attribution, 4) whether the site has a distinction between news and opinion 5) whether the stories were "counterfeit". For example, several of the sites used linked to web sites that were designed to look like a well-known news source, including using a URL that mimicked the well-known source. Basically, spoofing. The sites had to meet all of these criteria in order to qualify for the seed group.
The methodology is entirely laid out in the study's text and in the supplemental documentation provided.. Your characterization isn't even close to the methods that they used. In a way, your willingness to misrepresent what the study said is a pretty good example of what the study showed: The desire to spread mis-information in order to try to advance a right-wing agenda.
Again, here is the link to the full peer-reviewed study:
That is addressed in the methodology. Pardon this lengthy quote from the article:
We identified sources of junk news and information, based on a grounded typology. Sources of junk news deliberately publish misleading, deceptive or incorrect information purporting to be real news about politics, economics or culture. This content includes various forms of extremist, sensationalist, conspiratorial, masked commentary, fake news and other forms of junk news. For a source to be labeled as junk news it must fall in at least three of the following five domains:
Professionalism: These outlets do not employ the standards and best practices of professional journalism. They refrain from providing clear information about real authors, editors, publishers and owners. They lack transparency, accountability, and do not publish corrections on debunked information.
Style: These outlets use emotionally driven language with emotive expressions, hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, misleading headlines, excessive capitalization, unsafe generalizations and fallacies, moving images, graphic pictures and mobilizing memes.
Credibility: These outlets rely on false information and conspiracy theories, which they often employ strategically. They report without consulting multiple sources and do not employ fact-checking methods. Their sources are often untrustworthy and their standards of news production lack credibility.
Bias: Reporting in these outlets is highly biased and ideologically skewed, which is otherwise described as hyper-partisan reporting. These outlets frequently present opinion and commentary essays as news.
Counterfeit: These outlets mimic professional news media. They counterfeit fonts, branding and stylistic content strategies. Commentary and junk content is stylistically disguised as news, with references to news agencies, and credible sources, and headlines written in a news tone, with bylines, date, time and location stamps.
Sources of junk news were evaluated and reevaluated in a rigorously iterative coding process. A team of 12 trained coders, familiar with the US political and media landscape, labeled sources of news and information based on a grounded typology. The Krippendorff’s alpha value for inter-coder reliability among three executive coders, who developed the grounded typology, was 0.805. The 91 sources of political news and information, which we identified over the course of several years of research and monitoring, produce content that includes various forms of propaganda and ideologically extreme, hyper-partisan, and conspiratorial political information. We tracked how the URLs to these websites were being shared over Twitter and Facebook (see online supplement for details)
Written by Left-Wing liberal acedemics with a strong left wing bias making the results utter none-sense.
Oxford University is hardly a bastion of liberal thinking.
Some of the famous arch-conservatives who have come out of Oxford include, Theresa May, David Cameron, Margaret Thatcher, Edward Heath, Harold Macmillan, Anthony Eden, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Louise Mensch and Dan Hannan., to name a few from the past and present.
It is amusing to watch, isn't it? First you define anything Republicans like as fake. Then you check to see if Republicans or Democrats absorb more fake news. Of course, your results confirm your selection process.
I know it's heretical to even suggest it, but if you read the (peer-reviewed) article, you will learn that your characterization of this research is completely wrong.
Surely you are not suggesting that only so called educated people engage in critical thinking every day just doing their jobs day in day out?
It's not about education. It's about political orientation. This peer-reviewed article from Oxford University's Computational Propaganda Project, would seem to indicate, very specifically, that when it comes to fake news, people on the Right are less likely to engage in critical thinking and more likely to "listen and believe". That's not me saying that, it's the study (which you can read here and also learn about their methodology). And that's just the most charitable interpretation. It's also possible that they know the fake news they are sharing is fake, but just don't care.
In other narcissist news, I am planning a massive military parade in my own honor. OK, it's not exactly massive. It's just me and the dog, but we will be wearing our dress uniforms and I will be carrying a boom box blasting the Königgrätzer Marsch. It commences as soon as I finish this highball.
I talk a lot of shit about Musk, but I've got to say, that was some first-rate space-shot porn. When the two side-boosters landed, there were tears in my cynical old eyes. Salut.
The only thing that could top this is if the flat-earth guy finally gets his homemade rocket off the ground. I've got high hopes for that maniac.
Not that I would recommend it, but if that was your plan today is a good day for it. Sure, the stock market is down 4.6%, but bitcoin is down 12.6%. So you get 9.4% more bitcoin per share (average share price) today compared to yesterday.
I'm not sure, because I've been drinking since the markets closed, but I get the feeling there's a logical fallacy in that.
But you could be pulling my leg. The first thing to go is the ability to discern sarcasm.
things like extra-judicially executing american citizens. negotiating with terrorists, paying terrorists, paying ransoms?
So, you were worried that Barack Obama was going to extra-judicially execute you? You lived for eight years "scared to death" of being extra-judicially executed?
God man, being afraid all the time is no way to live.
How in the hell can Linux be considered "more successful" than even Windows Vista for any of those metrics?
Clearly, you're not aware that there are now open source Linux drivers for the nvidia Riva TNT, so Linux is more successful in every way. 1999 was the year of Linux on the Desktop, but nobody noticed because of Y2K.
No, those $10,000 audiophile Ethernet cables don't make your music sound better, but studies have shown that they will improve your scores on Overwatch by making the bitstream more coherent and reducing lag caused by ambient gamma radiation. But you have to make sure you hook them up in the proper direction.
The reason CD sales are declining is cos because most of the content is rubbish.
Oh, not this "music is bad now" horseshit again.
People are not going to buy music, if, after listening to it once, they never want to hear it again.
There is plenty of music from the last year that I want to hear again and again.
If you look at the comments on Youtube...
Oh my god.
If you look at the comments on Youtube, the 50's and 60's music gets tons of comments saying "This is amazing - I which I had been around in those days"
During the 50's and 60's, there were plenty of people who called the music rubbish. In fact, much of the music of the '50s and '60s was in fact rubbish. Did you know that on the Billboard Hot 100 singles for the year 1961, you will find Laurence Welk listed above Roy Orbison?
while the new stuff has loads of views but few comments.
You do realize that "making comments" is not one of the primary uses for music, right?
Listen, there is a ton of good music being made right now. 2017 was actually a really good year for music, across all the popular genres. All you need to have is a little discernment to find to good stuff. Just like in the 50's and 60's. You need to go and look for it, the same way people did back then. Fortunately, there are a lot more ways to do that then ever before.
I'm the one who first coined the term, "RAM" to describe random access memory. It took me weeks to come up with it. Finally, after drinking half a bottle of absinthe, one night I had a dream about having sex with a sheep and...VOILA!...it came to me. RAM. Yep, that was all me.
Slashdot Mirror
https://www.factcheck.org/2017...
The FISA warrant was to wiretap Carter Page, not Donald Trump. And since Donald Trump and his spokespeople have said on numerous occasions that Carter Page was a "nobody", I don't see how Trump could have been caught in such a warrant.
The story that "Trump was wiretapped" is fake news.
No again. Nothing in the study describes (or mentions) "real news". There is a set of criteria which are indicative of fake news. If a site meets a certain threshold for those criteria, then it was eligible for inclusion in the seed group.
Please stop mis-characterizing this work. Or if you're going to mis-characterize it, try to find a basis that is not so easily refuted by the actual study, which is freely available and makes its methodology clear.
It's more than just a group of "humans" sitting around and picking sites at random.
From the study:
It includes a lot more than professionalism and style. There is a larger set of criteria, and the sites had to fit ALL of the criteria to be included in the seed group.
You are cherry-picking sentence fragments from the study in order to spread misinformation about it.
Which three? Remember, the sites had to meet ALL of the criteria in order to qualify for the seed group.
Except that's not what they did at all. Your still arguing from what you want the study say rather than what the study says. You are a good example of the study's findings.
No, that's not even close. They didn't describe "real news" at all, only "fake news" which had to fit a set of very specific criteria, including 1) the lack of transparency in listing the names of the authors, 2) whether they illustrated their stories with lots of capital letters, memes, emotional language, etc., 3) Not listing sources or giving attribution, 4) whether the site has a distinction between news and opinion 5) whether the stories were "counterfeit". For example, several of the sites used linked to web sites that were designed to look like a well-known news source, including using a URL that mimicked the well-known source. Basically, spoofing. The sites had to meet all of these criteria in order to qualify for the seed group.
The methodology is entirely laid out in the study's text and in the supplemental documentation provided.. Your characterization isn't even close to the methods that they used. In a way, your willingness to misrepresent what the study said is a pretty good example of what the study showed: The desire to spread mis-information in order to try to advance a right-wing agenda.
Again, here is the link to the full peer-reviewed study:
http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/re...
That is addressed in the methodology. Pardon this lengthy quote from the article:
Oxford University is hardly a bastion of liberal thinking.
Some of the famous arch-conservatives who have come out of Oxford include, Theresa May, David Cameron, Margaret Thatcher, Edward Heath, Harold Macmillan, Anthony Eden, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Louise Mensch and Dan Hannan., to name a few from the past and present.
I know it's heretical to even suggest it, but if you read the (peer-reviewed) article, you will learn that your characterization of this research is completely wrong.
It's not about education. It's about political orientation. This peer-reviewed article from Oxford University's Computational Propaganda Project, would seem to indicate, very specifically, that when it comes to fake news, people on the Right are less likely to engage in critical thinking and more likely to "listen and believe". That's not me saying that, it's the study (which you can read here and also learn about their methodology). And that's just the most charitable interpretation. It's also possible that they know the fake news they are sharing is fake, but just don't care.
http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/re...
In other narcissist news, I am planning a massive military parade in my own honor. OK, it's not exactly massive. It's just me and the dog, but we will be wearing our dress uniforms and I will be carrying a boom box blasting the Königgrätzer Marsch. It commences as soon as I finish this highball.
I talk a lot of shit about Musk, but I've got to say, that was some first-rate space-shot porn. When the two side-boosters landed, there were tears in my cynical old eyes. Salut.
The only thing that could top this is if the flat-earth guy finally gets his homemade rocket off the ground. I've got high hopes for that maniac.
I'm not sure, because I've been drinking since the markets closed, but I get the feeling there's a logical fallacy in that.
But you could be pulling my leg. The first thing to go is the ability to discern sarcasm.
I'm bullish on cryptocurrency, and plan to sell some of my stock portfolio to buy more BitCoin.
**looks at stock portfolio today**
OK, never mind. Maybe I'll sell my collection of 10 Beanie Babies, which by now must be worth several million dollars.
You think anti-vax is a leftwing conspiracy theory? Hmm.
https://twitter.com/realdonald...
https://www.infowars.com/resea...
This doesn't exist.
9/11 "false flag" conspiracies are a conservative phenomenon.
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
A leading right-wing conspiracy is that soy makes you gay. Now, you want to give me an example of a left-wing conspiracy that's "just as loony"?
So, you were worried that Barack Obama was going to extra-judicially execute you? You lived for eight years "scared to death" of being extra-judicially executed?
God man, being afraid all the time is no way to live.
Who are these conservatives who were terrified to be in the US under Obama, and what were they afraid of?
Every single one of the sitting judges on the FISA court have been appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Presidents don't appoint FISA judges.
Oh, you sweet summer child.
Clearly, you're not aware that there are now open source Linux drivers for the nvidia Riva TNT, so Linux is more successful in every way. 1999 was the year of Linux on the Desktop, but nobody noticed because of Y2K.
No, those $10,000 audiophile Ethernet cables don't make your music sound better, but studies have shown that they will improve your scores on Overwatch by making the bitstream more coherent and reducing lag caused by ambient gamma radiation. But you have to make sure you hook them up in the proper direction.
I suppose that next you're going to tell me that my $120 ceramic cable elevators don't really make my music sound better.
https://www.reddragonaudio.com...
Oh, not this "music is bad now" horseshit again.
There is plenty of music from the last year that I want to hear again and again.
Oh my god.
During the 50's and 60's, there were plenty of people who called the music rubbish. In fact, much of the music of the '50s and '60s was in fact rubbish. Did you know that on the Billboard Hot 100 singles for the year 1961, you will find Laurence Welk listed above Roy Orbison?
You do realize that "making comments" is not one of the primary uses for music, right?
Listen, there is a ton of good music being made right now. 2017 was actually a really good year for music, across all the popular genres. All you need to have is a little discernment to find to good stuff. Just like in the 50's and 60's. You need to go and look for it, the same way people did back then. Fortunately, there are a lot more ways to do that then ever before.
I'm the one who first coined the term, "RAM" to describe random access memory. It took me weeks to come up with it. Finally, after drinking half a bottle of absinthe, one night I had a dream about having sex with a sheep and...VOILA!...it came to me. RAM. Yep, that was all me.