Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Donald Trump running for president

Aleksandar37 said:
I read many news sources and still have several contacts within the FBI, so I find your knee jerk reaction to a simple question amusing. You stated he did something illegal. I know why he was fired. Being fired doesn't mean you did anything illegal. I'm asking where you're seeing that there is evidence that he did something illegal, when the other person he was being compared to (Flynn) pleaded guilty. Not saying he won't be found guilty; simply asking where you're seeing that he already has.
Click to expand...

ever hear of a judge named Contreras?
 
youngandfree said:
He was fired for lying to investigators. Flynn plead guilty to lying to investigators. Just because McCabe hasn't been charged yet doesn't mean his lying to investigators wasn't criminal.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the statement you are now making. This statement however is different than your previous one saying he was guilty of a crime.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I'm not interested in conspiracy crap that you think you understand. If you don't like our legal system, you're free to move to Canada.
Click to expand...

lol...are you drunk again-and here it is only Monday...you really need to seek help!!!
 
youngandfree said:
I didn't say he was guilty of a crime did I? Remember semantics matter, your rules. :)

But leaking information to the media is a crime.
Click to expand...

You said he did something that you are also saying is a crime. You can keep trying to trip me up all you want. Like usual, rather than saying oops, I misspoke, you choose to do this odd little dance. FYI, I didn't invent semantics...those are civilized society's rules or just basic common sense.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
You said he did something that you are also saying is a crime. You can keep trying to trip me up all you want. Like usual, rather than saying oops, I misspoke, you choose to do this odd little dance. FYI, I didn't invent semantics...those are civilized society's rules or just basic common sense.
Click to expand...

But I didn't misspeak. The firing report says he leaked info. Btw, I'm still waiting for the source to your claim that the Republicans used the media as a political weapon.
 
youngandfree said:
But I didn't misspeak. The firing report says he leaked info. Btw, I'm still waiting for the source to your claim that the Republicans used the media as a political weapon.
Click to expand...

You said he committed a crime. I asked for a source where he was found guilty of a crime. You went into your usual autistic screeching of unrelated crap to try and avoid the question.

Rebuplicans who use the media as a political weapon? I did answer this when I stated that Trump frequently attacks the media that tends to be biased towards Democrats while praising and hashtagging Fox. If you need another example, that would be Trump hiring Bannon. And we'll see what comes of Cambridge Analytica.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
How have I given the Democrats a pass on anything? Your comebacks don't make any sense because you just try and say the opposite of what I say to you, but I actually have independent thoughts rather than copy pasting the same bull**** over and over again. Has a single Democrat ever hashtagged a media outlet? Trump does it constantly with Fox and Friends, but you're only concerned about the Democrats.

Keep sucking that Trump **** though and see where it gets you. My guess is the same damn place 20 years from now.
Click to expand...

How is Trump tweeting about fox and friends anywhere close to the dems using the media cronies to report fake information in order to push their agenda. My "opinion piece" cites known and proven examples of the dems doing it.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
You said he committed a crime. I asked for a source where he was found guilty of a crime. You went into your usual autistic screeching of unrelated crap to try and avoid the question.

Rebuplicans who use the media as a political weapon? I did answer this when I stated that Trump frequently attacks the media that tends to be biased towards Democrats while praising and hashtagging Fox. If you need another example, that would be Trump hiring Bannon. And we'll see what comes of Cambridge Analytica.
Click to expand...

I believe you've said in the past you have to be "charged with a crime" for that illegal activity to be considered a crime. If there's no charges, the illegal activity must not be criminal.
 
youngandfree said:
I believe you've said in the past you have to be "charged with a crime" for that illegal activity to be considered a crime. If there's no charges, the illegal activity must not be criminal.
Click to expand...

So what has McCabe been charged with then? I'm not seeing how you're supporting what you're saying. It seems like you're supporting what I'm saying, which is that the comparison isn't crime to crime.
 
youngandfree said:
How is Trump tweeting about fox and friends anywhere close to the dems using the media cronies to report fake information in order to push their agenda. My "opinion piece" cites known and proven examples of the dems doing it.
Click to expand...

If you don't believe that both sides do it, I'm not going to change your mind because I don't care about your opinion; I care about facts. Trump himself now has been caught repeatedly lying and using his press secretary and Fox and Breitbart to spread false information. He's also been caught claiming facts were false information when they weren't. CNN has become a piece of **** news source who currently can't be trusted, so I don't know why you keep claiming that is where I get all my information from or that I'm somehow a fan of them simply because I call out other sources for being biased. If you're also somehow offended that I called an op-ed piece, an opinion, well then I can't help you there either.
 
youngandfree said:
He was fired for lying to investigators. Flynn plead guilty to lying to investigators. Just because McCabe hasn't been charged yet doesn't mean his lying to investigators wasn't criminal.
Click to expand...

Notice these mice turds only get in trouble when they lie to each other and never when they lie to us!
 
Aleksandar37 said:
If you don't believe that both sides do it, I'm not going to change your mind because I don't care about your opinion; I care about facts. Trump himself now has been caught repeatedly lying and using his press secretary and Fox and Breitbart to spread false information. He's also been caught claiming facts were false information when they weren't. CNN has become a piece of **** news source who currently can't be trusted, so I don't know why you keep claiming that is where I get all my information from or that I'm somehow a fan of them simply because I call out other sources for being biased. If you're also somehow offended that I called an op-ed piece, an opinion, well then I can't help you there either.
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed

Remember when FB allowed Obama's organization to data mine, and now all of a sudden the same thing is a problem when a company that legally used FB user data, that the FB user agreed to by downloading that company's app. This whole attack on Cambridge Analytica and claiming they did something illegal is a joke. Especially when FB, Twitter, and You Tube are all attacking or blocking conservative points of view.
 
youngandfree said:
Invalid Link Removed

Remember when FB allowed Obama's organization to data mine, and now all of a sudden the same thing is a problem when a company that legally used FB user data, that the FB user agreed to by downloading that company's app. This whole attack on Cambridge Analytica and claiming they did something illegal is a joke. Especially when FB, Twitter, and You Tube are all attacking or blocking conservative points of view.
Click to expand...

Again--in case I wasn't clear the hundred other times I've said it--both sides do it and both sides should be investigated and punished. The defense that democrats did something so the republicans should also be able to do it is childish, hypocritical, and not in the interest of improving our country. The same goes for anybody upset about republicans doing something that they were alright with or ignorant to democrats doing.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Again--in case I wasn't clear the hundred other times I've said it--both sides do it and both sides should be investigated and punished. The defense that democrats did something so the republicans should also be able to do it is childish, hypocritical, and not in the interest of improving our country. The same goes for anybody upset about republicans doing something that they were alright with or ignorant to democrats doing.
Click to expand...

The problem is both sides aren't doing it. When did I say if dems did it repubs should also? Social media sites aren't censoring and banning liberal content. You tube isn't demonetizing liberal content. To think that it's happening to both sides is absurd.
 
youngandfree said:
The problem is both sides aren't doing it. When did I say if dems did it repubs should also? Social media sites aren't censoring and banning liberal content. You tube isn't demonetizing liberal content. To think that it's happening to both sides is absurd.
Click to expand...

You keep combining topics and pretending that they're the same. First off, you need to separate what our government is allowed to do and doing from what private companies are allowed to do and doing. Youtube is not our government and not held to the same rules. The first amendment does not refer to youtube.

When I say both sides, I am referring to the two major parties in our government and the politicians in those parties who are indeed held to rules set forth by the constitution. If you don't think that both sides are doing the same thing--even though you provided an example of both parties doing the same thing--I can't help your voluntary or involuntary ignorance. If you want to think democrats are the only ones playing stupid games, then you're simply part of the problem.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
You keep combining topics and pretending that they're the same. First off, you need to separate what our government is allowed to do and doing from what private companies are allowed to do and doing. Youtube is not our government and not held to the same rules. The first amendment does not refer to youtube.

When I say both sides, I am referring to the two major parties in our government and the politicians in those parties who are indeed held to rules set forth by the constitution. If you don't think that both sides are doing the same thing--even though you provided an example of both parties doing the same thing--I can't help your voluntary or involuntary ignorance. If you want to think democrats are the only ones playing stupid games, then you're simply part of the problem.
Click to expand...

They are all shyturds, every one of them.
 
youngandfree said:
The problem is both sides aren't doing it. When did I say if dems did it repubs should also? Social media sites aren't censoring and banning liberal content. You tube isn't demonetizing liberal content. To think that it's happening to both sides is absurd.
Click to expand...

Perhaps there's a reason.......

Invalid Link Removed
 
Misfit28 said:
Perhaps there's a reason.......

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Let's keep in mind the ones responsible for declaring what's "fake news" on FB are the ones that allowed Obama and his campaign to used data mining, and are now up in arms because Trump did the same thing.

ETA: From the article: " 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."

To claim a legacy news agency like Wapo and NYT isn't biased is a joke and calls into question the entire "study".
 
youngandfree said:
Let's keep in mind the ones responsible for declaring what's "fake news" on FB are the ones that allowed Obama and his campaign to used data mining, and are now up in arms because Trump did the same thing.

ETA: From the article: " 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."

To claim a legacy news agency like Wapo and NYT isn't biased is a joke and calls into question the entire "study".
Click to expand...

If you're claiming that it wasn't Trump and his team that started this whole "fake news" thing, then you are straight up lying. Also, somebody that continually posts random opinion pieces from online blog "newspapers" hardly has room to criticize legitimate news sources.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
If you're claiming that it wasn't Trump and his team that started this whole "fake news" thing, then you are straight up lying. Also, somebody that continually posts random opinion pieces from online blog "newspapers" hardly has room to criticize legitimate news sources.
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming that at all. That study is based on what FB has decided it would rule was "fake news". And FB has clearly been proven to be biased in its blocking and censoring of conservative groups or pages, and highly supportive of liberal and progressive groups. Once again as evidenced by their allowance of the Obama campaign to use data they admitted they wouldn't allow other groups to do. Which is why they are blocking Cambridge Analytica now.

"FACEBOOK REPRESENTATIVES TOLD BARACK OBAMA’S 2012 CAMPAIGN THAT THEY HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO USE THE PLATFORM IN WAYS THAT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN PROHIBITED, BECAUSE FACEBOOK WAS “ON OUR SIDE,” ACCORDING TO EXPLOSIVE CLAIMS FROM OBAMA’S FORMER DIRECTOR FOR MEDIA ANALYTICS, CAROL DAVIDSEN.
They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side."

— Carol Davidsen (@cld276) March 19, 2018
 
youngandfree said:
Let's keep in mind the ones responsible for declaring what's "fake news" on FB are the ones that allowed Obama and his campaign to used data mining, and are now up in arms because Trump did the same thing.

ETA: From the article: " 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."

To claim a legacy news agency like Wapo and NYT isn't biased is a joke and calls into question the entire "study".
Click to expand...

youngandfree said:
I'm not claiming that at all. That study is based on what FB has decided it would rule was "fake news". And FB has clearly been proven to be biased in its blocking and censoring of conservative groups or pages, and highly supportive of liberal and progressive groups. Once again as evidenced by their allowance of the Obama campaign to use data they admitted they wouldn't allow other groups to do. Which is why they are blocking Cambridge Analytica now.

"FACEBOOK REPRESENTATIVES TOLD BARACK OBAMA’S 2012 CAMPAIGN THAT THEY HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO USE THE PLATFORM IN WAYS THAT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN PROHIBITED, BECAUSE FACEBOOK WAS “ON OUR SIDE,” ACCORDING TO EXPLOSIVE CLAIMS FROM OBAMA’S FORMER DIRECTOR FOR MEDIA ANALYTICS, CAROL DAVIDSEN.
They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side."

— Carol Davidsen (@cld276) March 19, 2018
Click to expand...

You are claiming that. The bold statement above from you is a lie. The one responsible for this entire "fake news" bull**** is Trump and his team. They could have done the right thing and only called actual fake news, fake news. However, they have chosen to declare anything they disagree with as fake news even when it has been shown to be fact. They also embrace fake news when it supports their own agenda. This has led to an army of village idiots crying that anything and everything that doesn't fit with their own preconceived notions as fake news.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
You are claiming that. The bold statement above from you is a lie. The one responsible for this entire "fake news" bull**** is Trump and his team. They could have done the right thing and only called actual fake news, fake news. However, they have chosen to declare anything they disagree with as fake news even when it has been shown to be fact. They also embrace fake news when it supports their own agenda. This has led to an army of village idiots crying that anything and everything that doesn't fit with their own preconceived notions as fake news.
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed

So you're disputing that Zuckerberg hasn't decided to determine what's fake and limitt it? And you're disputing that he's using partisan "news outlets" to fact check them?

"Once a story has been flagged as fake, the most complex element of the new strategy begins. A Facebook spokesperson walked me through how the fact-checking process will work. Facebook is working with, to start, a handful of third-party, U.S.-based fact-checking organizations: ABC News, Snopes, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, and AP. (The sites are part of Poynter’s International Fact Checking Network and have agreed to a “fact-checkers’ code of principles.”)

So I'm clear, you dispute that FB isn't biased and that Trump made it up, and you dispute that FB allowed Dem operatives to do things with user data that they are now up in arms about with Cambridge Analytica doing, which was perfectly legal?
 
youngandfree said:
Invalid Link Removed

So you're disputing that Zuckerberg hasn't decided to determine what's fake and limitt it? And you're disputing that he's using partisan "news outlets" to fact check them?

"Once a story has been flagged as fake, the most complex element of the new strategy begins. A Facebook spokesperson walked me through how the fact-checking process will work. Facebook is working with, to start, a handful of third-party, U.S.-based fact-checking organizations: ABC News, Snopes, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, and AP. (The sites are part of Poynter’s International Fact Checking Network and have agreed to a “fact-checkers’ code of principles.”)

So I'm clear, you dispute that FB isn't biased and that Trump made it up, and you dispute that FB allowed Dem operatives to do things with user data that they are now up in arms about with Cambridge Analytica doing, which was perfectly legal?
Click to expand...

I haven't disputed any of that. You're not even clever enough to try and twist my words; you simply make up random crap that you claim I said. Me: Trump started this whole fake news nonsense, You: So you're saying that blue is really yellow?

I could take the time to type out a long explanation of where we're actually agreeing, but you're too focused on what the internet told you to be angry about this week. You're being a hypocrite the same way that Obama fans who are upset about Cambridge Analytica are.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I haven't disputed any of that. You're not even clever enough to try and twist my words; you simply make up random crap that you claim I said. Me: Trump started this whole fake news nonsense, You: So you're saying that blue is really yellow?

I could take the time to type out a long explanation of where we're actually agreeing, but you're too focused on what the internet told you to be angry about this week. You're being a hypocrite the same way that Obama fans who are upset about Cambridge Analytica are.
Click to expand...
Invalid Link Removed

What you bolded and said was a lie is referring to what you just said you didn't dispute.
 
youngandfree said:
What you bolded and said was a lie is referring to what you just said you didn't dispute.
Click to expand...

You want to deny that Trump and his team began this "fake news" crap. It was part of his campaign, but ok, we'll agree to disagree. I'm not disputing that others are doing it, including Facebook, but the ones responsible includes more than just those on Obama's side. Again, I'm saying both sides share the blame; you're claiming that only democrats are doing it.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
You want to deny that Trump and his team began this "fake news" crap. It was part of his campaign, but ok, we'll agree to disagree. I'm not disputing that others are doing it, including Facebook, but the ones responsible includes more than just those on Obama's side. Again, I'm saying both sides share the blame; you're claiming that only democrats are doing it.
Click to expand...

When did i deny Trump was the o e that started the term fake news? You're hung up on the wrong thing that's not even what I'm talking about. I clearly posted about FB using biased "fact checkers" to determine what's fake. I clearly posted how FB is biased against Republicans and allowed democrats to do things that they are now bent about and trying to make people believe that the Republicans were using a company that was doing something shady. I never even mentioned who originated the term fake news or disputed that it was Trump. But you're so hung up on attacking Trump and everyone that supports him, that you're arguing against stuff that wasn't said. Exactly as you're accusing me of.


Additionally, Republicans don't control FB, twitter, you tube. So how are they responsible for those platforms censoring democrats?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
If you're claiming that it wasn't Trump and his team that started this whole "fake news" thing, then you are straight up lying. Also, somebody that continually posts random opinion pieces from online blog "newspapers" hardly has room to criticize legitimate news sources.
Click to expand...

I started the fake news thing years before Dump, Ill take the blame lol

Dump still claimed a few days ago in his big attack speech Fox is real which makes me think he also believes in the Easter bunny.
 
youngandfree said:
I'm not claiming that at all. That study is based on what FB has decided it would rule was "fake news". And FB has clearly been proven to be biased in its blocking and censoring of conservative groups or pages, and highly supportive of liberal and progressive groups. Once again as evidenced by their allowance of the Obama campaign to use data they admitted they wouldn't allow other groups to do. Which is why they are blocking Cambridge Analytica now.

"FACEBOOK REPRESENTATIVES TOLD BARACK OBAMA’S 2012 CAMPAIGN THAT THEY HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO USE THE PLATFORM IN WAYS THAT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN PROHIBITED, BECAUSE FACEBOOK WAS “ON OUR SIDE,” ACCORDING TO EXPLOSIVE CLAIMS FROM OBAMA’S FORMER DIRECTOR FOR MEDIA ANALYTICS, CAROL DAVIDSEN.
They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side."

— Carol Davidsen (@cld276) March 19, 2018
Click to expand...

Did you even read the study?

Why am I even asking this?

Please tell me where the researchers said that they used FB's definition of "fake news":

From the study.....

"STUDY SAMPLE AND METHOD
For this study, a seed of known propaganda websites
across the political spectrum was used, drawing from
a sample of 22,117,221 tweets collected during the
US election, between November 1-11, 2016. (The full
seed list is in the online supplement and available as
a standalone spreadsheet.) 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,
3
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).
Specifically, we computed the coverage and
consistency scores for each group. Coverage of a
group refers to the percentage of all propaganda
domains identified in our junk news sources list that a
group posted links to. The Consistency of a group
refers to the percentage of the total of number of links
to all the propaganda domains identified in our junk
news sources list, that is shared by the group. A high
value for coverage shows that the group is sharing a
wide range of propaganda, while a high value for
consistency shows that the group is playing a key role
in the spreading of such propaganda. Coverage and
consistency scores were calculated from the number
of links shared from the groups to the junk news
sources."
 
youngandfree said:
I'm not claiming that at all. That study is based on what FB has decided it would rule was "fake news". And FB has clearly been proven to be biased in its blocking and censoring of conservative groups or pages, and highly supportive of liberal and progressive groups. Once again as evidenced by their allowance of the Obama campaign to use data they admitted they wouldn't allow other groups to do. Which is why they are blocking Cambridge Analytica now.

"FACEBOOK REPRESENTATIVES TOLD BARACK OBAMA’S 2012 CAMPAIGN THAT THEY HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO USE THE PLATFORM IN WAYS THAT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN PROHIBITED, BECAUSE FACEBOOK WAS “ON OUR SIDE,” ACCORDING TO EXPLOSIVE CLAIMS FROM OBAMA’S FORMER DIRECTOR FOR MEDIA ANALYTICS, CAROL DAVIDSEN.
They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side."

— Carol Davidsen (@cld276) March 19, 2018
Click to expand...

The reason they are blocking those sites is that they are far and away the worst perpetrators of false info.

Heck, the military analyst just stepped down from Faux News and called it a propaganda machine for Trump.
 
Misfit28 said:
Did you even read the study?

Why am I even asking this?

Please tell me where the researchers said that they used FB's definition of "fake news":

From the study.....

"STUDY SAMPLE AND METHOD
For this study, a seed of known propaganda websites
across the political spectrum was used, drawing from
a sample of 22,117,221 tweets collected during the
US election, between November 1-11, 2016. (The full
seed list is in the online supplement and available as
a standalone spreadsheet.) 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,
3
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).
Specifically, we computed the coverage and
consistency scores for each group. Coverage of a
group refers to the percentage of all propaganda
domains identified in our junk news sources list that a
group posted links to. The Consistency of a group
refers to the percentage of the total of number of links
to all the propaganda domains identified in our junk
news sources list, that is shared by the group. A high
value for coverage shows that the group is sharing a
wide range of propaganda, while a high value for
consistency shows that the group is playing a key role
in the spreading of such propaganda. Coverage and
consistency scores were calculated from the number
of links shared from the groups to the junk news
sources."
Click to expand...

I qouted several parts of the study that causes one to question it's credibilty. Namely using lefty biased organizations to be the arbiters of truth. I also quoted the part that says FB is using certain, biased organizations to be the filters. Half of their filtering metrics can describe CNN or msnbc, wapo, nyt
 
Misfit28 said:
The reason they are blocking those sites is that they are far and away the worst perpetrators of false info.

Heck, the military analyst just stepped down from Faux News and called it a propaganda machine for Trump.
Click to expand...

Then why did they allow Obama's people to do what they are now claiming was some sort of illegal activity?
 
youngandfree said:
I qouted several parts of the study that causes one to question it's credibilty. Namely using lefty biased organizations to be the arbiters of truth. I also quoted the part that says FB is using certain, biased organizations to be the filters. Half of their gite ring metrics can describe CNN or msnbc, wapo, nyt
Click to expand...

Hahahaha.

Now you are the arbiter of truth. What does that have to do with FB?

Here's another study for you to ignore because you're too ignorant to understand anything but the crap that spews out of Trump's piehole:

Invalid Link Removed
 
youngandfree said:
I qouted several parts of the study that causes one to question it's credibilty. Namely using lefty biased organizations to be the arbiters of truth. I also quoted the part that says FB is using certain, biased organizations to be the filters. Half of their gite ring metrics can describe CNN or msnbc, wapo, nyt
Click to expand...

You know why they describe Wapo, etc.? Because most of those people actually went to school for journalism.
 
Misfit28 said:
Hahahaha.

Now you are the arbiter of truth. What does that have to do with FB?

Here's another study for you to ignore because you're too ignorant to understand anything but the crap that spews out of Trump's piehole:

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

What do you mean "what does it have to do with FB? The entire study you posted is about them.
So you're saying the "legacy news sources" quoted in your study aren't biased to the left? Sure thing.
 
Misfit28 said:
You know why they describe Wapo, etc.? Because most of those people actually went to school for journalism.
Click to expand...

So they went to journalism school to learn biased journalism? I thought the purpose was to learn how to be a nonbiased reporter.
Which doesn't excuse their openly leftists agenda and reporting bias.
 
youngandfree said:
What do you mean "what does it have to do with FB? The entire study you posted is about them.
So you're saying the "legacy news sources" quoted in your study aren't biased to the left? Sure thing.
Click to expand...

Just because the medium used to share the fake news was FB doesn't mean the study is about FB. They also mention Twitter.

Duh.
 
youngandfree said:
So they went to journalism school to learn biased journalism? I thought the purpose was to learn how to be a nonbiased reporter.
Which doesn't excuse their openly leftists agenda and reporting bias.
Click to expand...

I would think so. However, I have never gone to school for journalism. I don't purport to know what is taught in other subject areas from my own expertise.......unlike some people.

Everything that doesn't agree with your worldview is biased. Did you ever think that maybe your own worldview is biasing how you see and interpret all this information? That maybe it really is the truth, and you can't see it at all because you are so biased?
 
Misfit28 said:
I would think so. However, I have never gone to school for journalism. I don't purport to know what is taught in other subject areas from my own expertise.......unlike some people.

Everything that doesn't agree with your worldview is biased. Did you ever think that maybe your own worldview is biasing how you see and interpret all this information? That maybe it really is the truth, and you can't see it at all because you are so biased?
Click to expand...

So every bit of negative reporting by all those "unbiased news sources" attacking every single time Trump breathes, yet gave a pass to all the shady stuff Obama did for 8 years is just my worldview. Funny how none of those agencies spend any time reporting all of the boost to the economy and lower unemployment rates under Trump, yet spun Obama's job numbers anyway possible to make them look good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top