Cracking down on fake news

Following the example of Mark Zuckerberg, who is quite notably Jewish, I wish to fight back against the fake news is that is making debate impossible, undermining our collective ability to discern the truth, and enabling tyrannical, intolerant and corrupt dictatorships not only in the United States but around the world.

To that end, let's begin discussion of sources that should not be allowed as original sources on NewsFix. Two that I've already named are non-negotiable -- Daily Wire and Infowars. These (and the rest) may only be used in article comments, not as the OP.

The basic criteria for a trustworthy news organization is really simple -- does it issue good-faith corrections, or does it not? As I've said ad infinitum et nauseum, everybody makes mistakes. If you're trying to be factual, you correct your mistakes. If you don't care about the truth, you don't bother correcting your inaccuracies, because they were the whole point all along.

Because so many people have falsely claimed that I'm merely cracking down, Hitler-style, on views I don't like, let's throw in some left-wing sites that were also identified -- BY SNOPES.COM -- of having spread falsehoods about Trump. They are:

www.truthexam.com - for falsely claiming Trump was bringing back "Negro" as an official U.S. government ethnic designation (in fact, it's still used on some forms)

shareblue.com - for falsely claiming Trump violated respectful protocol during a U.S. military ceremony.

This, as I have to point out again, is my forum. I wouldn't come to your house and try to persuade you to do something that goes against your ethics. Please don't try to persuade me that I should allow my forum to be used by people who want to fool the public.

Come get me.

Ben Reilly wrote:Following the example of Mark Zuckerberg, who is quite notably Jewish, I wish to fight back against the fake news is that is making debate impossible, undermining our collective ability to discern the truth, and enabling tyrannical, intolerant and corrupt dictatorships not only in the United States but around the world.

To that end, let's begin discussion of sources that should not be allowed as original sources on NewsFix. Two that I've already named are non-negotiable -- Daily Wire and Infowars. These (and the rest) may only be used in article comments, not as the OP.

The basic criteria for a trustworthy news organization is really simple -- does it issue good-faith corrections, or does it not? As I've said ad infinitum et nauseum, everybody makes mistakes. If you're trying to be factual, you correct your mistakes. If you don't care about the truth, you don't bother correcting your inaccuracies, because they were the whole point all along.

Because so many people have falsely claimed that I'm merely cracking down, Hitler-style, on views I don't like, let's throw in some left-wing sites that were also identified -- BY SNOPES.COM -- of having spread falsehoods about Trump. They are:

www.truthexam.com - for falsely claiming Trump was bringing back "Negro" as an official U.S. government ethnic designation (in fact, it's still used on some forms)

shareblue.com - for falsely claiming Trump violated respectful protocol during a U.S. military ceremony.

This, as I have to point out again, is my forum. I wouldn't come to your house and try to persuade you to do something that goes against your ethics. Please don't try to persuade me that I should allow my forum to be used by people who want to fool the public.

Come get me.

What's a good faith correction?

If you constantly fuck up (like say CNN), does it matter if you say "my bad" after the correction (3 days later after the damage is done)?

Actually, it does. It can take time to figure out how to correct news in the best possible way -- I've dedicated hours to it, and I cover sports.

If you came to my house, I would not care what you talked about, because i love a good discussion and I am intelligent enough to disagree with you and not threat to chuck you out, because I disagree with you.

Oh and Mark only cares about the money he makes from facebook and thus its all about image to the public.

If he really cared about antisemitism, he would have done something about it a very long time ago. He still allows many groups on facebook that are openly hateful of Jews.

To be honest you are acting like a spoilt child, not respecting the fact your place only functions on the guests you do have

Ben Reilly wrote:Actually, it does. It can take time to figure out how to correct news in the best possible way -- I've dedicated hours to it, and I cover sports.

If you are so incompetent (or biased), that corrections are always needed, everything you write becomes suspect.

I would hardly call an organization run like that reliable. That may be why viewership continues to wane for those type outlets.

Didge wrote:If you came to my house, I would not care what you talked about, because i love a good discussion and I am intelligent enough to disagree with you and not threat to chuck you out, because I disagree with you.

Oh and Mark only cares about the money he makes from facebook and thus its all about image to the public.

If he really cared about antisemitism, he would have done something about it a very long time ago. He still allows many groups on facebook that are openly hateful of Jews.

To be honest you are acting like a spoilt child, not respecting the fact your place only functions on the guests you do have

we could function with less guests though, we have for before.

And if I came to your house with Full on Hamas Supporters gear and a megaphone and just wouldn't shut up about the genocide Israel is currently attempting on Palestine , Be honest.... you'd get sick of me and chuck me out

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:If you came to my house, I would not care what you talked about, because i love a good discussion and I am intelligent enough to disagree with you and not threat to chuck you out, because I disagree with you.

Oh and Mark only cares about the money he makes from facebook and thus its all about image to the public.

If he really cared about antisemitism, he would have done something about it a very long time ago. He still allows many groups on facebook that are openly hateful of Jews.

To be honest you are acting like a spoilt child, not respecting the fact your place only functions on the guests you do have

we could function with less guests though, we have for before.

And if I came to your house with Full on Hamas Supporters gear and a megaphone and just wouldn't shut up about the genocide Israel is currently attempting on Palestine , Be honest.... you'd get sick of me and chuck me out

No I would not, but quite a few people would clearly laugh at you, that you must be deranged, thinking Israel has committed genocide. As anyone who believes that, has not even an understanding what genocide is.

I would rise to the challenge and easily ridiucule your claims and its no doubt, you would be crying and wanting me to get you a taxi home. Of course i would not want to upset you, but when I easily correct your errors and then ask why you support a group that wants to eradicate the Jews. I am sure you would feel very embarressed, by thus admitting to be racist

Hey ho

Nah, I brought a mega phone to your house remember. I'll just keep turning the volume louder


And you presume that I am debating, and not just spouting shit to annoy you. which is what the individuals most impacted by Ben's new rule are doing.

veya_victaous wrote:Nah, I brought a mega phone to your house remember. I'll just keep turning the volume louder          


And you presume that I am debating, and not just spouting shit to annoy you. which is what the individuals most impacted by Ben's new rule are doing.

That is fine, if you can try to out do my music system

Good luck with that.

I think you get the hump very quickly and look rather silly

But be my guest

"Stormfront",  that nasty little white supremacist blogsite/"fake news" source, so beloved of MiniMinorStormee and a couple of his more racist Floptard chums...

And its Australian and Eastern Euro' subsidiaries..

"Breitbart" --  ditto;  plus the fact that Steve Bannon and his ex' were among its founders speaks volumes.

************************************************************************


Extremist Left Wing 'sites  ???

I'm suspicious of anything associated with the Socialist Workers Party, and their Stalinist policies..

And, from the anarchist/left-leaning fruitloop fringe dwellers :

Any site pushing  "Vegan ideals";  and any "anti-Vaxxer" sites, as both groups peddle heaps of 'fake news' stories.

One thing is for certain. Once government gets involved in deciding what we should see, we all lose.

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Nah, I brought a mega phone to your house remember. I'll just keep turning the volume louder          


And you presume that I am debating, and not just spouting shit to annoy you. which is what the individuals most impacted by Ben's new rule are doing.

That is fine, if you can try to out do my music system

Good luck with that.

I think you get the hump very quickly and look rather silly

But be my guest

So one way or another you'd still be shutting him up.

Ben Reilly wrote:Following the example of Mark Zuckerberg, who is quite notably Jewish, I wish to fight back against the fake news is that is making debate impossible, undermining our collective ability to discern the truth, and enabling tyrannical, intolerant and corrupt dictatorships not only in the United States but around the world.

To that end, let's begin discussion of sources that should not be allowed as original sources on NewsFix. Two that I've already named are non-negotiable -- Daily Wire and Infowars. These (and the rest) may only be used in article comments, not as the OP.

The basic criteria for a trustworthy news organization is really simple -- does it issue good-faith corrections, or does it not? As I've said ad infinitum et nauseum, everybody makes mistakes. If you're trying to be factual, you correct your mistakes. If you don't care about the truth, you don't bother correcting your inaccuracies, because they were the whole point all along.

Because so many people have falsely claimed that I'm merely cracking down, Hitler-style, on views I don't like, let's throw in some left-wing sites that were also identified -- BY SNOPES.COM -- of having spread falsehoods about Trump. They are:

www.truthexam.com - for falsely claiming Trump was bringing back "Negro" as an official U.S. government ethnic designation (in fact, it's still used on some forms)

shareblue.com - for falsely claiming Trump violated respectful protocol during a U.S. military ceremony.

This, as I have to point out again, is my forum. I wouldn't come to your house and try to persuade you to do something that goes against your ethics. Please don't try to persuade me that I should allow my forum to be used by people who want to fool the public.

Come get me.

well, I don't agree with it and I still think it sounds dictatorial but that being said, this is a nice forum and more importantly, as you have pointed out, it's YOUR forum and you are entitled to make any rules you like. Them that can't take that are free to leave.

Enough said, Ben - I'll do me best

It really isn’t a hard request. There are plenty of sources for news on the internet.

eddie wrote:It really isn’t a hard request. There are plenty of sources for news on the internet.  

And there are plenty of easy ways around the ban

Ben Reilly wrote:

This, as I have to point out again, is my forum. I wouldn't come to your house and try to persuade you to do something that goes against your ethics.

AMEN!
This is the crux of the matter, which I was trying to point out too.
The owner gets the casting vote!
Anyone who objects should surely go create their own forum, it's not difficult.

Jules wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

This, as I have to point out again, is my forum. I wouldn't come to your house and try to persuade you to do something that goes against your ethics.

AMEN!
This is the crux of the matter, which I was trying to point out too.
The owner gets the casting vote!
Anyone who objects should surely go create their own forum, it's not difficult.

True. It's your private property.

But then again you started this thread and challenged your members. You shouldn't be surprised when they take up the challenge.

There was once a forum called 'Dallas Digest" it was a great forum and people there held strong views which they were free to discuss.

The one rule was please treat this forum and the other posters on it as if they were guests in your house.
Oh....the unspoken rule was the owner had the final world if there was a real dispute, and like Ben he very seldom interfered with the way the forum was run.

If he did, people respected his wish....the odd one that didn't, left.....end of.

Syl wrote:There was once a forum called 'Dallas Digest" it was a great forum and people there held strong views which they were free to discuss.

The one rule was please treat this forum and the other posters on it as if they were guests in your house.
Oh....the unspoken rule was the owner had the final world if there was a real dispute, and like Ben he very seldom interfered with the way the forum was run.

If he did, people respected his wish....the odd one that didn't, left.....end of.

Again, fucking exactly that.

Its getting boring now. The bullet maker loaded the gun and no doubt is sitting back smirking whilst others are firing it.

Syl wrote:Its getting boring now. The bullet maker loaded the gun and no doubt is sitting back smirking whilst others are firing it.

Oh great! Are we adding another rule that states posts must also be entertaining and not boring?

Facts and entertainment value? Who will I be posting with, myself?

so where is smelly anyway

did he delete his account in protest?

is he still here?

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:Its getting boring now. The bullet maker loaded the gun and no doubt is sitting back smirking whilst others are firing it.

Oh great! Are we adding another rule that states posts must also be entertaining and not boring?

Facts and entertainment value?  Who will I be posting with, myself?    

Stop moaning and see if you can answer the 'light hearted game' quiz.

gelico wrote:

so where is smelly anyway

did he delete his account in protest?

is he still here?

I figured he was put in Siberia for challenging the Peoples Party.

Maddog wrote:

gelico wrote:

so where is smelly anyway

did he delete his account in protest?

is he still here?

I figured he was put in Siberia for challenging the Peoples Party.  

gelico wrote:

so where is smelly anyway

did he delete his account in protest?

is he still here?

He was basemented by Ben for a day or so and has since been let out.  He won’t delete his  account because he has a bet with himself that he can get himself banned so he can erect a statue of himself, to himself. You know, for the 18 biz.

Why was Smelly basemented?

eddie wrote:

gelico wrote:

so where is smelly anyway

did he delete his account in protest?

is he still here?

He was basemented by Ben for a day or so and has since been let out.  He won’t delete his  account because he has a bet with himself that he can get himself banned so he can erect a statue of himself, to himself. You know, for the 18 biz.

I just nearly choked on my snickers bar. wtf did he do to get basemented then.

did he put up another daily wire in protest of Ben?

OMG, this has started to become hilarious

so smelly is furiously lurking on the fringes of the forum, not wanting to post, not wanting to leave,,,,,and Ben is silently and patiently watching his prey

oh my

Miffs2 wrote:Why was Smelly basemented?

For posting a story from the source he was asked not to.
And!
Also smelly wanted to be basemented because he’s the the people’s poet. Or summat.

eddie wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:Why was Smelly basemented?

For posting a story from the source he was asked not to.
And!
Also smelly wanted to be basemented because he’s the the people’s poet. Or summat.

I think Smelly wanted to prove a point. Let's be frank, Ben has made a bit of a hash of all this. Still it was amusing

It’s hard to get things perfect and please everyone all the time though, isn’t it? Running a debate forum full of opinionated people, troublemakers and shitstirrers can be a thankless task. I’m glad I don’t do it.

Remember all the moaning and bitching about ADO and Inaflap and Sky? You’d think that people would finally find somewhere they’re happy but alas....

eddie wrote:It’s hard to get things perfect and please everyone all the time though, isn’t it? Running a debate forum full of opinionated people, troublemakers and shitstirrers can be a thankless task. I’m glad I don’t do it.

Remember all the moaning and bitching about ADO and Inaflap and Sky? You’d think that people would finally find somewhere they’re happy but alas....

but eddie, everyone was already posting quite happily from what I could see. Everyone had their own say and there wasn't a problem

Can I just ask? Did Ben suddenly randomly decide this weird rule all by himself one day? Or was it the result of receiving a whole load of 'moaning and bitching' from others here?

curious on this one, cos as nems said, the whole thing is a bit of a hash and just seems a bit weird

gelico wrote:

eddie wrote:It’s hard to get things perfect and please everyone all the time though, isn’t it? Running a debate forum full of opinionated people, troublemakers and shitstirrers can be a thankless task. I’m glad I don’t do it.

Remember all the moaning and bitching about ADO and Inaflap and Sky? You’d think that people would finally find somewhere they’re happy but alas....

but eddie, everyone was already posting quite happily from what I could see.  Everyone had their own say and there wasn't a problem

Can I just ask?  Did Ben suddenly randomly decide this weird rule all by himself one day?  Or was it the result of receiving a whole  load of 'moaning and bitching' from others here?

curious on this one, cos as nems said, the whole thing is a bit of a hash and just seems a bit weird

That was my thinking. If it aint broke...............................

gelico wrote:

eddie wrote:It’s hard to get things perfect and please everyone all the time though, isn’t it? Running a debate forum full of opinionated people, troublemakers and shitstirrers can be a thankless task. I’m glad I don’t do it.

Remember all the moaning and bitching about ADO and Inaflap and Sky? You’d think that people would finally find somewhere they’re happy but alas....

but eddie, everyone was already posting quite happily from what I could see.  Everyone had their own say and there wasn't a problem

Can I just ask?  Did Ben suddenly randomly decide this weird rule all by himself one day?  Or was it the result of receiving a whole  load of 'moaning and bitching' from others here?

curious on this one, cos as nems said, the whole thing is a bit of a hash and just seems a bit weird

I’m pretty sure he’s explained all this himself but I’ll leave this for him to answer, if he wants to (again) as I don’t want to misquote someone’s who’s intelligent and eloquent enough to speak for himself.

I do know though, that he did some pretty decent research and matters of the media mean a lot to him - as we all know.

P: ADO wasn’t broke but it didn’t stop the endless complaints once a month.
Once a month like a big fat heavy period that no one looks forward to.

eddie wrote:

gelico wrote:


but eddie, everyone was already posting quite happily from what I could see.  Everyone had their own say and there wasn't a problem

Can I just ask?  Did Ben suddenly randomly decide this weird rule all by himself one day?  Or was it the result of receiving a whole  load of 'moaning and bitching' from others here?

curious on this one, cos as nems said, the whole thing is a bit of a hash and just seems a bit weird

I’m pretty sure he’s explained all this himself but I’ll leave this for him to answer, if he wants to (again) as I don’t want to misquote someone’s who’s intelligent and eloquent enough to speak for himself.

I do know though, that he did some pretty decent research and matters of the media mean a lot to him - as we all know.

P: ADO wasn’t broke but it didn’t stop the endless complaints once a month.
Once a month like a big fat heavy period that no one looks forward to.

well, no, how could he? i've only just asked the question

my point is that this rule suddenly seemed to come out of the blue which was a bit difficult to understand

but your post said ''it's hard to please everyone'' and then said about ''bitching and moaning'' kind of made me wonder if there had been some of the latter and he was then trying to calm the waters so to speak

that takes nothing away from his own research or his own wishes for his own forum but i just wondered if he had received any complaints/concerns prior to stating this rule

http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/phony-baloney-the-9-fakest-fake-news-checkers/

http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/phony-baloney-the-9-fakest-fake-news-checkers/


Check out number 7...

Tommy Monk wrote:http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/phony-baloney-the-9-fakest-fake-news-checkers/


Check out number 7...

I doubt WND will be allowed much longer either.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:Its getting boring now. The bullet maker loaded the gun and no doubt is sitting back smirking whilst others are firing it.

Oh great! Are we adding another rule that states posts must also be entertaining and not boring?

Facts and entertainment value?  Who will I be posting with, myself?    

that's already a rule.... applied at my discretion

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Oh great! Are we adding another rule that states posts must also be entertaining and not boring?

Facts and entertainment value?  Who will I be posting with, myself?    

that's already a rule.... applied at my discretion  

Apparently you have exempted yourself.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Oh great! Are we adding another rule that states posts must also be entertaining and not boring?

Facts and entertainment value?  Who will I be posting with, myself?    

that's already a rule.... applied at my discretion  

Apparently you have exempted yourself.

it mainly applies to didge

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/phony-baloney-the-9-fakest-fake-news-checkers/


Check out number 7...

I doubt WND will be allowed much longer either.

There is a site called mediabiasfactcheck.com ... purporting to give fair and independent review/rating of other 'news media' sites, on how factual they are and the level of spin/bias used etc...


For a laugh... have a look at how they rate 'dailywire' and then have a look at how they rate 'snopes'...!


Then have a look at the WND link I posted above, to see what is said about mediabiasfactcheck.com ...!!!


Most amusing!!!

Wing nut daily was an anti Clinton site from the get go.

So what...!?

Fox News is a lying Republican propaganda bureau that spreads mostly disinformation to rile the Republican base into hating everybody.

Lurker wrote:Fox News is a lying Republican propaganda bureau that spreads mostly disinformation  to rile the Republican base into hating everybody.

Don't you have some memes to post somewhere?

Some people tend to search for "news" that reinforces their beliefs and doesn't give them facts. Pesky facts ruin their days.

Again. I do not think any media sites should be banned.

Just do as I easily do, expose they are bollocks, but countless have been posted by Sassy and I have to ask, is why is Ben then not keeping to his no rule?

For example

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t23851-what-did-the-salisbury-physician-mean-by-no-patients-have-experienced-symptoms-of-nerve-agent-poisoning#457504

This one, is from a conspiracy theorist, Holocaust denier, thrown out of labour for antisemitism (not that this part will bother Ben, as he allows that).
Again this was false

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t23831-the-madness-of-jacob-rees-mogg-he-has-cash-invested-in-a-blacklisted-russian-bank

Here is another and actually a person that does suffer with mental health issues. He is another conspiracy loon and also connected to antisemites. No evidence to back up any of the claims

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t23760-ex-uk-ambassador-makes-an-observation-that-unravels-the-russian-spy-story

So why is Ben not acting?

Skawkbox is another fake news site she posts


https://order-order.com/2018/01/02/ipso-throws-another-skwawkbox-complaint/

https://order-order.com/2017/04/05/corbynista-site-skwawkbox-publishes-fake-news/

https://order-order.com/2017/11/09/ipso-skwawkbox-fake-news/

With "The Canary" that she posts, they often post glaring mistakes and lies, but do also apologise, so that is okay.

Didge wrote:Again. I do not think any media sites should be banned.

Just do as I easily do, expose they are bollocks, but countless have been posted by Sassy and I have to ask, is why is Ben then not keeping to his no rule?

For example

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t23851-what-did-the-salisbury-physician-mean-by-no-patients-have-experienced-symptoms-of-nerve-agent-poisoning#457504

This one, is from a conspiracy theorist, Holocaust denier, thrown out of labour for antisemitism (not that this part will bother Ben, as he allows that).
Again this was false

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t23831-the-madness-of-jacob-rees-mogg-he-has-cash-invested-in-a-blacklisted-russian-bank

Here is another and actually a person that does suffer with mental health issues. He is another conspiracy loon and also connected to antisemites. No evidence to back up any of the claims

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t23760-ex-uk-ambassador-makes-an-observation-that-unravels-the-russian-spy-story

So why is Ben not acting?

Just for once, I'm going to reply specifically to dumb-dumb. I presume from that, dumb-dumb thinks that George Smiley
‏ @georgescircus is George Galloway (who BTW has never denied the Holocaust)


Well dumb-dumb, George Galloway's twitter handle is George GallowayVerified account
@georgegalloway


George Smiley
@georgescircus is:

A bee keeper engaged by the Overseas Committee for Academic Research



What a plonker Rodney lol