Google Fact Check Goes Live

[ClydeR]

This is worth watching. Not many articles are flagged now, but expect to see it more often.


In practice, this means that if you are looking for facts in Google Search (maybe to make sure it’s not fake), you will now regularly see information from sites like PolitiFact or Snopes that will prominently appear on the page. Google will present a link to those sites’ fact checks, together with a bit of additional information about the claim and, of course, whether this organization rated it as true or false (or somewhere in the middle).

Occasionally, of course, different groups may have come to different conclusions. Some of these claims can be a bit fuzzy, after all. Google says it will present those different opinions to its users. “Even though differing conclusions may be presented, we think it’s still helpful for people to understand the degree of consensus around a particular claim and have clear information on which sources agree,” the company writes in today’s announcement. “As we make fact checks more visible in Search results, we believe people will have an easier time reviewing and assessing these fact checks, and making their own informed opinions.”

On its help pages, Google notes that it is obviously not doing these fact checks itself (“If you disagree with a fact check, contact the website owner that published it”).

More... (https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/07/fact-check-the-world-is-flat/)


Let's look at an example. Certain People in this forum recently posted that Trump is considering resigning. Do a Google search for "trump considering resigning" and you'll see the fact check. Other examples are "trump opens national parks for mining" and "trump was drumpf."

[~Rocktar~]

Welcome to the Liberal plan B, let's further censor information. OH and BTW, Youtube, owned by Google is changing up their algorithms to control what people see as well in an effort to reduce payment to content creators and to change the narrative.

[Gelston]

They own it, they can do what they want. You can always use bing.

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOj3zjmn4uc

[time4fun]

This is worth watching. Not many articles are flagged now, but expect to see it more often.




Let's look at an example. Certain People in this forum recently posted that Trump is considering resigning. Do a Google search for "trump considering resigning" and you'll see the fact check. Other examples are "trump opens national parks for mining" and "trump was drumpf."

Now the right is going to freak out. They don't like when facts get in the way of their outlook.

[time4fun]

Welcome to the Liberal plan B, let's further censor information. OH and BTW, Youtube, owned by Google is changing up their algorithms to control what people see as well in an effort to reduce payment to content creators and to change the narrative.

Hey genius- when someone presents a fact that calls into question your belief... It's not a liberal conspiracy.

It's called reality. And the conservative trolls of PC desperately need this.

[Androidpk]

"confirmed by partisan fact-checkers Snopes and Politifact"

[drauz]

Hey genius- when someone presents a fact that calls into question your belief... It's not a liberal conspiracy.

It's called reality. And the conservative trolls of PC desperately need this.

I think a lot of people here live in their own bubble, myself included. It will only get harder to hear opposing view points as time goes on. I watched an interesting video where a psychologist talks about how google and the other search engines get more focused on "what you want to see". He says that he believes that at some point in the future all the search results will merely confirm your already held beliefs because their algorithm knows what you already believe in a sense.

[~Rocktar~]

Hey genius- when someone presents a fact that calls into question your belief... It's not a liberal conspiracy.

It's called reality. And the conservative trolls of PC desperately need this.

Hey retard, you talking about facts is hypocritical. When Politifact and Snopes have been exposed as biased sources, using them to "fact check" news is suspect. And how would you know what reality is since you haven't likely seen or participated in it since you were an infant?

[~Rocktar~]

I think a lot of people here live in their own bubble, myself included. It will only get harder to hear opposing view points as time goes on. I watched an interesting video where a psychologist talks about how google and the other search engines get more focused on "what you want to see". He says that he believes that at some point in the future all the search results will merely confirm your already held beliefs because their algorithm knows what you already believe in a sense.

Partly true, also, as they become a single source feed, they then get to control the narrative and exert even more influence.

[Taernath]

You can always use bing.

You monster.

[time4fun]

Hey retard, you talking about facts is hypocritical. When Politifact and Snopes have been exposed as biased sources, using them to "fact check" news is suspect. And how would you know what reality is since you haven't likely seen or participated in it since you were an infant?

Uh huh.

Citation please.
This is a thread about fact checking. You might have bothered to fact check your own statement.

[Warriorbird]

Uh huh.

Citation please.
This is a thread about fact checking. You might have bothered to fact check your own statement.

Naturally the response to some accusations of bias should be to go somewhere with even more bias. Don't you understand?

[time4fun]

Naturally the response to some accusations of bias should be to go somewhere with even more bias. Don't you understand?

Stupid reality.

It's nothing but a liberal conspiracy!

[Parkbandit]

Wait.. JUST so we understand you two blithering idiots: You both believe that Snopes and Politifact are unbiased sources for information?

Or are they just sources that you both agree with their outcomes, so that's why you like them?

[~Rocktar~]

Wait.. JUST so we understand you two blithering idiots: You both believe that Snopes and Politifact are unbiased sources for information?

Or are they just sources that you both agree with their outcomes, so that's why you like them?

Yes, they are asserting that Snopes and Politifact are unbiased fact checking organizations.

[Methais]

Wait.. JUST so we understand you two blithering idiots: You both believe that Snopes and Politifact are unbiased sources for information?

Or are they just sources that you both agree with their outcomes, so that's why you like them?

Dude...it says FACT right there in the name. What more proof do you need?

And why isn't time4fun's word alone good enough? You must be a Russian misogynist.


Now the right is going to freak out. They don't like when facts get in the way of their outlook.

You said Politifact is legit because it says "fact" in the name.

With a straight face.

And you weren't trolling.

Why should anyone take anything you say seriously?

And before you deflect instead as to why nobody should take me seriously...I don't expect anyone to 99.99999% of the time. I'm here for entertainment from people like you and Back that never fail to deliver.

[Back]

So then where is the best place to get the facts?

[time4fun]

Yes, they are asserting that Snopes and Politifact are unbiased fact checking organizations.

Okay, you do understand that if you're going to call into question the veracity of two reputable fact checking sites that you have to provide evidence, right?

You can't just keep saying that they aren't and relying on the approval of someone else who also has no evidence.

Grow up.

[Gelston]

Okay, you do understand that if you're going to call into question the veracity of two reputable fact checking sites that you have to provide evidence, right?

You can't just keep saying that they aren't and relying on the approval of someone else who also has no evidence.

Grow up.

Who says they are reputable?

[~Rocktar~]

Okay, you do understand that if you're going to call into question the veracity of two reputable fact checking sites that you have to provide evidence, right?

You can't just keep saying that they aren't and relying on the approval of someone else who also has no evidence.

Grow up.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA ~gasp gasp pant pant~ AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

For fucks sake you are a special kind of stupid aren't you. It has been cited multiple times where both sites have shown political bias and have had factual errors. You have replied to those posts so I don't feel the need to try and hammer it into your thick skull. Simply put, you have been shown and you refuse to acknowledge it so it's a waste of time. And then you have the temerity to tell me to grow up? That's rich. Of course I don't have 3 advanced degrees in some useless fields paid for on the taxpayer's dime and more experience in everything than any other living being so maybe I do need to elevate myself to the mystical plane of ethereal bullshit that you live on. Or maybe I will continue on my course of recovering from some disastrous life choice I made when very young, pulling myself out of crushing debt from a divorce and rebuilding my life to where I can buy my father's home and allow him to live it in until he dies because I can. Yep, I think that is the path I will take and continue not to justify myself to arrogant, infantile, emotionally crippled, adult children such as yourself.

You can lead an idiot to knowledge but you can't make them think. You are living proof.

Oh, and read my sig, I don't need anyone's approval.

[drauz]

Okay, you do understand that if you're going to call into question the veracity of two reputable fact checking sites that you have to provide evidence, right?

You can't just keep saying that they aren't and relying on the approval of someone else who also has no evidence.

Grow up.

https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye-bye-snopes-youre-dead-to-me-now/

[Back]

It has been cited multiple times where both sites have shown political bias and have had factual errors.

Link?

[SHAFT]

Welcome to the Liberal plan B, let's further censor information. OH and BTW, Youtube, owned by Google is changing up their algorithms to control what people see as well in an effort to reduce payment to content creators and to change the narrative.

If you only see "liberal" or "conservative", you're pretty fucking stupid. You should probably rethink your whole life-plan and strategy.

Calling someone a liberal or a conservative is sooooo 2015.

[Back]

https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye-bye-snopes-youre-dead-to-me-now/

Oooookaaaaay... some kook with his own blog. Gotcha.

[drauz]

Oooookaaaaay... some kook with his own blog. Gotcha.

Can't refute anything he says. Shift to ad hominem attacks to someone you know nothing about. Gotcha.

[Taernath]

Oooookaaaaay... some kook with his own blog. Gotcha.

These boards have a blog feature. Someone ought to start a politics blog and then we can all quote them as fact.


Can't refute anything he says. Shift to ad hominem attacks to someone you know nothing about. Gotcha.

You understand the issue though, right? You can find a blog that says anything.

[drauz]

These boards have a blog feature. Someone ought to start a politics blog and then we can all quote them as fact.



You understand the issue though, right? You can find a blog that says anything.

You realize snopes is basically just a blog right? In the same sense that the blog I posted is. There are no journalists at snopes.

[Back]

Can't refute anything he says. Shift to ad hominem attacks to someone you know nothing about. Gotcha.

LOL!!! He is nitpicking at best. Even he admits Snopes is right. In the comments people are calling him out and he is all YOURE BAAAANED!!! Whatever dude.

[Taernath]

You realize snopes is basically just a blog right? In the same sense that the blog I posted is. There are no journalists at snopes.

In their early days that may have been the case, now not so much. They do a good job of citing the sources they used to come to their conclusion, and I would say they are at least trying to remain neutral, unlike your blogger with an axe to grind. For example:


The website has made the disastrous decision to wade into political topics and to hire some new social justice warriors and wanna-be Democratic Party operatives to cover them, resulting in the site becoming a bad imitation of PolitiFact.

You read that and think they'll be objective? All it's missing is some shrieking about cucks.

[drauz]

LOL!!! He is nitpicking at best. Even he admits Snopes is right. In the comments people are calling him out and he is all YOURE BAAAANED!!! Whatever dude.

Good argument on why snopes isn't biased. I'll look into every claim you've made there. Oh, but there weren't...

[drauz]

In their early days that may have been the case, now not so much. They do a good job of citing the sources they used to come to their conclusion, and I would say they are at least trying to remain neutral, unlike your blogger with an axe to grind.

What makes you feel they are trying to be neutral? The majority of political blogs seems to be put out by Kim LaCapria. Not any actual journalists.

[Tenlaar]

By rights I should spam this comment, because it’s insulting, it’s really intellectually crippled, it recycles bad arguments that I have rebutted on this thread repeatedly, and it uses LOL, which is banned here. Read the comments policies—and it uses the equally disfavored “supposed ethicist” : I am a professional, full time 80 hours a week ethicist, jerk.

But I really, really hate it when tools like you deny facts and airtight arguments, and use a string of fallacies to mislead others, so I’ll take the time to show what a disgraceful steaming pile of disinformation and stupidity this comment is…and THEN you’re banned.

Yeah, this guy seems completely rational and unbiased.

[Taernath]

What makes you feel they are trying to be neutral? The majority of political blogs seems to be put out by Kim LaCapria. Not any actual journalists.

The language articles use reflect their bias. Calling something a bunch of 'social justice warriors' and 'would-be Democratic Operatives' pretty clearly puts your blogger in the Bias Box, just as this (http://www.salon.com/2017/04/08/ivanka-wants-to-be-the-girl-with-the-most-cake-a-new-york-democrat-in-private-and-a-public-trump-loyalist-all-at-once/) Salon article is biased in the opposite direction (note: you don't need to actually read it, I just selected it at random because I knew it would be terrible). Meanwhile, Snopes doesn't engage in any of that and has published some stuff that debunked a few anti-Trump conspiracies. That's why I consider them neutral.

As far as Kim Lacapria, I'm not super familiar with her but the few things I've read don't seem off. It's possible she's a Super Liberal in her private life but is capable of reining it in when she writes for Snopes. If you've got a specific article you're referring, to link it.

[drauz]

The language articles use reflect their bias. Calling something a bunch of 'social justice warriors' and 'would-be Democratic Operatives' pretty clearly puts your blogger in the Bias Box, just as this (http://www.salon.com/2017/04/08/ivanka-wants-to-be-the-girl-with-the-most-cake-a-new-york-democrat-in-private-and-a-public-trump-loyalist-all-at-once/) Salon article is biased in the opposite direction (note: you don't need to actually read it, I just selected it at random because I knew it would be terrible). Meanwhile, Snopes doesn't engage in any of that and has published some stuff that debunked a few anti-Trump conspiracies. That's why I consider them neutral.

As far as Kim Lacapria, I'm not super familiar with her but the few things I've read don't seem off. It's possible she's a Super Liberal in her private life but is capable of reining it in when she writes for Snopes. If you've got a specific article you're referring, to link it.

Well she use to write for the Inquisitir. Seems weird to go from a tabloid to a fact checking site..

[Parkbandit]

If you only see "liberal" or "conservative", you're pretty fucking stupid. You should probably rethink your whole life-plan and strategy.

Calling someone a liberal or a conservative is sooooo 2015.

If you can't see a liberal bias on Snopes or Politifact, you're pretty fucking stupid.

Oh wait, it's Shaft again!

[Parkbandit]

Link?

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/

[Back]

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/

The Federalist? LOL. Sorry chum.

My question at this point is if you can't trust these sites where are we all expected to get the truth?

[Ashlander]

The Federalist? LOL. Sorry chum.

My question at this point is if you can't trust these sites where are we all expected to get the truth?

Read multiple sites with different viewpoints instead of just the ones that agree with your own viewpoint. No one or two sites are going to give you the truth anyway all of them have some bias.

[Taernath]

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/

That is an absolutely bizarre article. First they remove Trump from their calculations completely despite him absolutely dominating political discussion for nearly a year. Then they don't remove Pelosi, even though she scored nearly the same 'truth' numbers as Trump, and claim that with the outliers removed the numbers really aren't that bad. Finally, the metric they use to determine the bias of an article is... word count? Wut?

[Parkbandit]

Read multiple sites with different viewpoints instead of just the ones that agree with your own viewpoint. No one or two sites are going to give you the truth anyway all of them have some bias.

Bingo

[Parkbandit]

That is an absolutely bizarre article. First they remove Trump from their calculations completely despite him absolutely dominating political discussion for nearly a year. Then they don't remove Pelosi, even though she scored nearly the same 'truth' numbers as Trump, and claim that with the outliers removed the numbers really aren't that bad. Finally, the metric they use to determine the bias of an article is... word count? Wut?

Some of the points they bring up are valid though.. unless you are Backlash and really believe all Democrat politicians are very honest and all Republicans are dishonest.

That type of blissful ignorance can't be corrected. Thankfully, it will die with him.

[time4fun]

https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye-bye-snopes-youre-dead-to-me-now/

Why are you citing ethicsalarms.com?


Here are some fun articles by them:


Incompetent Elected Official Of The Month: President Barack Obama (https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/04/07/incompetent-elected-official-of-the-month-president-barack-obama/)

Yes, Black Lives Matters Is A Racist Organization (Racism Is Unethical) (https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/04/05/yes-black-lives-matters-is-a-racist-organization-racism-is-unethical/)

How Do We Know The Democrats Can’t Find Any Ethical Reason Not To Confirm Judge Gorsuch? Because They Searched And Searched, And The Best They Could Come Up With Was THIS [UPDATED] (https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/04/05/how-do-we-know-the-democrats-cant-find-any-ethical-reason-not-to-confirm-judge-gorsuch-because-they-searched-and-searched-and-the-best-they-could-come-up-with-was-this/)

It's a right wing opinion site.

[time4fun]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA ~gasp gasp pant pant~ AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

For fucks sake you are a special kind of stupid aren't you. It has been cited multiple times where both sites have shown political bias and have had factual errors. You have replied to those posts so I don't feel the need to try and hammer it into your thick skull. Simply put, you have been shown and you refuse to acknowledge it so it's a waste of time. And then you have the temerity to tell me to grow up? That's rich. Of course I don't have 3 advanced degrees in some useless fields paid for on the taxpayer's dime and more experience in everything than any other living being so maybe I do need to elevate myself to the mystical plane of ethereal bullshit that you live on. Or maybe I will continue on my course of recovering from some disastrous life choice I made when very young, pulling myself out of crushing debt from a divorce and rebuilding my life to where I can buy my father's home and allow him to live it in until he dies because I can. Yep, I think that is the path I will take and continue not to justify myself to arrogant, infantile, emotionally crippled, adult children such as yourself.

You can lead an idiot to knowledge but you can't make them think. You are living proof.

Oh, and read my sig, I don't need anyone's approval.

It's been cited so many times that you can't actually find a citation? First off, you stated they were liberal bias sites, not that they had ever made a mistake. Secondly, you haven't provided evidence of either.

What is this now- 3 posts of swearing it's just so well documented but not being able to find any documentation?

You're a joke.

[Wrathbringer]

Why are you citing ethicsalarms.com?


Here are some fun articles by them:


Incompetent Elected Official Of The Month: President Barack Obama (https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/04/07/incompetent-elected-official-of-the-month-president-barack-obama/)

Yes, Black Lives Matters Is A Racist Organization (Racism Is Unethical) (https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/04/05/yes-black-lives-matters-is-a-racist-organization-racism-is-unethical/)

How Do We Know The Democrats Can’t Find Any Ethical Reason Not To Confirm Judge Gorsuch? Because They Searched And Searched, And The Best They Could Come Up With Was THIS [UPDATED] (https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/04/05/how-do-we-know-the-democrats-cant-find-any-ethical-reason-not-to-confirm-judge-gorsuch-because-they-searched-and-searched-and-the-best-they-could-come-up-with-was-this/)

It's a right wing opinion site.

Looks like real unbiased news to me. Face it: obummer is/was incompetent and democraps are retarded.

[Taernath]

Some of the points they bring up are valid though.. unless you are Backlash and really believe all Democrat politicians are very honest and all Republicans are dishonest

If you look at the numbers that were quoted on that site, nobody is claiming all Democrats are very honest. Sanders is just slightly above 50% 'truth', while Clinton is right at 50%. They lie. We know they lie. The author is more concerned with the frequency of Republicans getting called out rather than the veracity of it, though.

[Parkbandit]

If you look at the numbers that were quoted on that site, nobody is claiming all Democrats are very honest. Sanders is just slightly above 50% 'truth', while Clinton is right at 50%. They lie. We know they lie. The author is more concerned with the frequency of Republicans getting called out rather than the veracity of it, though.

So, if you go by Politifact, Republicans lie far more times than Democrats.

That's the problem with the site. It's a newspaper I am very familiar with.. they clearly have a left wing agenda. It's like the NY Times, but for the Tampabay area.

Can we at least agree that there is a clear bias on Politifact?

If you can't get to that point (ie time4fun, WB, Backlash, etc...) then we really can't even continue.

[Back]

Looks like real unbiased news to me. Face it: obummer is/was incompetent and democraps are retarded.

Trump won. Get over it.

[Wrathbringer]

Trump won. Get over it.

Happy Nobama Day, everyone!

[Taernath]

Can we at least agree that there is a clear bias on Politifact?

As far as I know, they're not inventing quotes and attributing them to Republicans nor are they covering for Democrats who, again, have about a coin tosses' odds of not lying.

I will say that some of what Politifact says can be open to interpretation. For example, the Paul/Webb 'half-truth' about income tax from your link - I would have rated them both at 'mostly true', maybe you would say they were completely true, I don't know. But there was an earlier, temporary war-time income tax in place so I can understand why they rated it the way they did, and the initial discrepancy between Paul's 'half-truth' and Webb's 'mostly true' has since been corrected, so they are open to change, which is a good thing in my book.

[Warriorbird]

If you can't get to that point then we really can't even continue.

That's been true for a long time. You misconstrued my post on the subject and ran with a bunch of your usual ad hominems. You're off on a tangent that shows you didn't even really pay attention to it.

Your basic point holds though. There are no accepted common grounds on sourcing so this is all pointless.

[Back]

Here is a good read on "alternative facts" and who and how they spread on the internet.

https://medium.com/hci-design-at-uw/information-wars-a-window-into-the-alternative-media-ecosystem-a1347f32fd8f


For more than three years, my lab at the University of Washington has conducted research looking at how people spread rumors online during crisis events. We have looked at natural disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes as well as man-made events such as mass shootings and terrorist attacks. Due to the public availability of data, we focused primarily on Twitter — but we also used data collected there (tweets) to expose broader activity in the surrounding media ecosystem.

Over time, we noted that a similar kind of rumor kept showing up, over and over again, after each of the man-made crisis events — a conspiracy theory or “alternative narrative” of the event that claimed it either didn’t happen or that it was perpetrated by someone other than the current suspects.

We first encountered this type of rumor while studying the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013. We noticed a large number of tweets (>4000) claiming that the bombings were a “false flag” perpetrated by U.S. Navy Seals. The initial spread of this rumor involved a “cascade” of tweets linking to an article on the InfoWars website. At the time, our researchers did not know what InfoWars was, but the significance of that connection became clear over time.

In subsequent crisis events, similar rumors appeared. After the Umpqua Community College shooting, a rumor claimed the event was staged by “crisis actors” for political reasons — specifically to justify legal restrictions on gun rights. And after the shootings at the Orlando Pulse nightclub, a rumor suggested they were committed by someone other than the accused gunman — with the purpose of falsely blaming the attack on Muslims. For every man-made crisis event we studied, we found evidence of alternative narratives, often shared by some of the same accounts and connected to some of the same online sites.

]These rumors had different “signatures” (http://faculty.washington.edu/kstarbi/Starbird_iConference2014-final.pdf) from other types of rumors. In terms of volume (measured in tweets per minute), most crisis-related rumors spike quickly and then fade out relatively quickly as well, typically “decaying” at an exponential rate. But these alternative narrative rumors rose more slowly, and then they lingered, ebbing and flowing over the course of days or weeks (or years). They also had sustained participation by a set group of Twitter users (i.e. many tweets per user over an extended period of time), rather than finite participation by a large number of users (one or two tweets per user, all at around the same time) as typical rumors do. Additionally, alternative narrative rumors often had high “domain diversity” (http://faculty.washington.edu/kstarbi/CSCW2015-Misinfo-Signatures-Maddock_Starbird.pdf), in that tweets referencing the rumors linked to a large number of distinct domains (different websites), including alternative media sites such as InfoWars, BeforeItsNews, and RT (aka Russia Today). Several of these rumors also had a strong “botnet” presence — in other words, many participating Twitter accounts were not “real” people, but were operated by a computer program that controlled a large number of accounts.


Here is a link to one of the main culprits in spreading alternative narratives.

http://nodisinfo.com/

Apparently, according to http://nodisinfo.com/, everything we ever thought was real was really the opposite of, or wildly askew of, the actual truth.

[drauz]

Why are you citing ethicsalarms.com?


Here are some fun articles by them:


Incompetent Elected Official Of The Month: President Barack Obama (https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/04/07/incompetent-elected-official-of-the-month-president-barack-obama/)

Yes, Black Lives Matters Is A Racist Organization (Racism Is Unethical) (https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/04/05/yes-black-lives-matters-is-a-racist-organization-racism-is-unethical/)

How Do We Know The Democrats Can’t Find Any Ethical Reason Not To Confirm Judge Gorsuch? Because They Searched And Searched, And The Best They Could Come Up With Was THIS [UPDATED] (https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/04/05/how-do-we-know-the-democrats-cant-find-any-ethical-reason-not-to-confirm-judge-gorsuch-because-they-searched-and-searched-and-the-best-they-could-come-up-with-was-this/)

It's a right wing opinion site.

You can't one week cite buzzfeed and say its the content that matters and then the next say its the site that matters and not the content.

[Back]

You can't one week cite buzzfeed and say its the content that matters and then the next say its the site that matters and not the content.

Buzzfeed has done some great journalism as opposed to some crank on his own blog. Sorry, bud.

[drauz]

Buzzfeed has done some great journalism as opposed to some crank on his own blog. Sorry, bud.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/ADr35Z4TvATIc/giphy.gif

[time4fun]

Buzzfeed has done some great journalism as opposed to some crank on his own blog. Sorry, bud.

Yeah. This.
It's great that you know BuzzFeed's quirky side, but it has actually broken a few big stories lately. Most importantly, it's actually a NEWS site.

Drauz quoted a right wing opinion blog. You know, the kind that recently got very special treatment from the Russians.

[Parkbandit]

That's been true for a long time. You misconstrued my post on the subject and ran with a bunch of your usual ad hominems. You're off on a tangent that shows you didn't even really pay attention to it.

Your basic point holds though. There are no accepted common grounds on sourcing so this is all pointless.

I know Warriorbird.. you never use ad hominem attacks, because you have "actual logic".

LOL.

Poor thing, you've been trying to take the high road since April 2003.. you just can't afford the tolls.

But that doesn't stop you from pretending to be on a high horse! Good for you!

[Parkbandit]

Buzzfeed has done some great journalism as opposed to some crank on his own blog. Sorry, bud.

LOL.

I remember when I was this naive... I was 4 I think.

What an adorable age...

[drauz]

Yeah. This.
It's great that you know BuzzFeed's quirky side, but it has actually broken a few big stories lately. Most importantly, it's actually a NEWS site.

Drauz quoted a right wing opinion blog. You know, the kind that recently got very special treatment from the Russians.

Did you miss the point as well as Back?

[Parkbandit]

Yeah. This.
It's great that you know BuzzFeed's quirky side, but it has actually broken a few big stories lately. Most importantly, it's actually a NEWS site.

Drauz quoted a right wing opinion blog. You know, the kind that recently got very special treatment from the Russians.

Yea.. remember the time Buzzfeed ran with a story about Trump and him urinating on the bed Obama slept in with a bunch of prostitutes?

It was so long ago.. you know, before they became the respected news site they are today.........................

Way to step up your game with Backlash coming on full speed.

The belt is pretty safe.

[Parkbandit]

Good job showing a complete inability to even address your own point. I'm glad you made it though.

With this post, you proved my point: You WANT to travel on the high road, but you've never been able to.

Thank you for proving what a raging hypocrite you are.

[Warriorbird]

With this post, you proved my point: You WANT to travel on the high road, but you've never been able to.

Thank you for proving what a raging hypocrite you are.

Keep telling yourself that insulting people gives you virtue.

[Parkbandit]

As far as I know, they're not inventing quotes and attributing them to Republicans nor are they covering for Democrats who, again, have about a coin tosses' odds of not lying.

I will say that some of what Politifact says can be open to interpretation. For example, the Paul/Webb 'half-truth' about income tax from your link - I would have rated them both at 'mostly true', maybe you would say they were completely true, I don't know. But there was an earlier, temporary war-time income tax in place so I can understand why they rated it the way they did, and the initial discrepancy between Paul's 'half-truth' and Webb's 'mostly true' has since been corrected, so they are open to change, which is a good thing in my book.

No one is saying they are inventing anything.

But if you "fact check" 90 Republicans (this number is completely made up) and claim that most of them are false.. and only "fact check" 30 (This number is completely made up) Democrats and claim that most of them are true.. you can understand how most intelligent people would see that they are bias, can't you?

[Warriorbird]

No one is saying they are inventing anything.

But if you "fact check" 90 Republicans (this number is completely made up) and claim that most of them are false.. and only "fact check" 30 (This number is completely made up) Democrats and claim that most of them are true.. you can understand how most intelligent people would see that they are bias, can't you?

The unfortunate point here is that you missed me and others suggesting that they have some degree of bias... but that our natural reaction isn't to go to sources that are even more biased.

But yeah. None of this works. And you are completely unwilling to acknowledge your part in that.

[Parkbandit]

Keep telling yourself that insulting people gives you virtue.

I've never, ever said that me insulting people gives me virtue. Never even implied it. Strawman much?

I've also never cried like a gigantic pussy when someone calls me a mean name, then returned the same type of mean name.. then later on claim "AD HOMINEM ATTACKS ARE BAD!"... and THEN make the retarded claim I don't ever do that because I have "actual logic".

I would have to be the biggest hypocrite on the entire planet to do something that pathetic.

Oh wait... hey Warriorbird.

[Warriorbird]

I've never, ever said that me insulting people gives me virtue. Never even implied it. Strawman much?

I've also never cried like a gigantic pussy when someone calls me a mean name, then returned the same type of mean name.. then later on claim "AD HOMINEM ATTACKS ARE BAD!"... and THEN make the retarded claim I don't ever do that because I have "actual logic".

I would have to be the biggest hypocrite on the entire planet to do something that pathetic.

Oh wait... hey Warriorbird.

You act as though it makes you special constantly.

Combined with an inability to accurately parse what other people say it most certainly contributes to this not working.

[Parkbandit]

You act as though it makes you special constantly.

The only one who believes he is special between the 2 of us is you. You are very, very "special".


Combined with an inability to accurately parse what other people say it most certainly contributes to this not working.

Honestly, you are probably right. If I sift through all your passive aggressive bullshit, ignore all the cries of victimhood about how mean I am to you, skip over the parts where you claim you are above such tactics, remove all the references to you being a teacher and really concentrate on those 2-3 words that actually show sign of intelligent thought..

But I've told you many, many times.. one of my major flaws is not having patience for really, really stupid people.

[Taernath]

No one is saying they are inventing anything.

But if you "fact check" 90 Republicans (this number is completely made up) and claim that most of them are false.. and only "fact check" 30 (This number is completely made up) Democrats and claim that most of them are true.. you can understand how most intelligent people would see that they are bias, can't you?

Do you think a plausible explanation for alleged unfair Republican scrutiny is that they control both the House and Senate, and the President is a living meme factory?

[Methais]

So then where is the best place to get the facts?

http://forum.gsplayers.com/forumdisplay.php?85-Politics

[Warriorbird]

The only one who believes he is special between the 2 of us is you. You are very, very "special".

Honestly, you are probably right. If I sift through all your passive aggressive bullshit, ignore all the cries of victimhood about how mean I am to you, skip over the parts where you claim you are above such tactics, remove all the references to you being a teacher and really concentrate on those 2-3 words that actually show sign of intelligent thought..

But I've told you many, many times.. one of my major flaws is not having patience for really, really stupid people.

I understand it's difficult for you not to behave the way you do. You lost your outlet. It's all right. You have my pity.


http://forum.gsplayers.com/forumdisplay.php?85-Politics

So much truth!

[Parkbandit]

Do you think a plausible explanation for alleged unfair Republican scrutiny is that they control both the House and Senate, and the President is a living meme factory?

If Politifact just started say in November of last year.. maybe. This has been going on since 2007 at it's inception.

Let's put this another way: If it was created by Fox News and called Politifact, would you stand up for it as being an unbiased source?

[Parkbandit]

I understand it's difficult for you not to behave the way you do. You lost your outlet. It's all right. You have my pity.

You're still upset about the red rep... you're just an innocent victim of my ad hominem attacks!

Poor thing. Tell us again how you have "actual logic".. because that one's adorable.

Now go cry yourself to sleep.

[Warriorbird]

You're still upset about the red rep... you're just an innocent victim of my ad hominem attacks!

Poor thing. Tell us again how you have "actual logic".. because that one's adorable.

Now go cry yourself to sleep.

Here's the bit where you think this makes you look good again.

[Parkbandit]

Here's the bit where you think this makes you look good again.

Yes, yes.. and you keep pretending to be above the fray.

But you've never looked good.

Ever.

:(

[Warriorbird]

Yes, yes.. and you keep pretending to be above the fray.

But you've never looked good.

Ever.

:(

I'm quite relieved that I don't look good to you.

[Taernath]

If Politifact just started say in November of last year.. maybe. This has been going on since 2007 at it's inception.

Let's put this another way: If it was created by Fox News and called Politifact, would you stand up for it as being an unbiased source?

If Fox could find a way to keep it well-researched and written from a neutral point of view, I would honestly have no problem with it. I actually watch a lot of Fox as it is.

Back to Politifact though, they've fact-checked around 600 of Obama's statements, and there have been plenty of less-than-truthful things he's said. They've also kept a running tally of the campaign promises he made vs. which ones he's actually kept. That doesn't sound like something a shill website would do.

[Latrinsorm]

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/There is another way to bin this data, though. Consider:

http://imgur.com/G5SsNlP.png

This divides the group into Senators (blue), Representatives (red), Governors (orange), and Other (gray), counting them as the highest office won in that order. Binning it this way gets rid of Bush and Pelosi as uncorrelated. There still looks to be a subdivision in Senators, but one that's easy to explain. Three of the four more trustworthy Senators are minorities (Jewish, female, black) and to survive the greater scrutiny from a hostile majority they had to lie less. (Note that while Marco Rubio is also a minority by the definitions of the majority, he does not consider himself one, as we can see by his driver's license (http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2015/05/marco-rubio-once-listed-himself-as-white-instead-of-hispanic-news-flash-hes-both.html) applications, and in this theory it is only the person's belief about themselves that is relevant.) This changes our averages and standard deviations from:

democrat: -16 ± 22
republican: -38 ± 21

to

senator (minority): 2 ± 3
senator (otherwise): -27 ± 16
representative: -50 ± 16

Note the smaller standard deviations, indicating a better fit. Ideally Tim Kaine would come out as gay and Paul Ryan would run for Senate, but these are the breaks. Even if we ignore the minority status of the most honest Senators, we'd get -17 ± 19, still clearly better than the party hypothesis.

This is what's called "occluded variables" in the trade. The Democrats in this sample are 86% Senators while the Republicans are only 38%, ergo the Republicans have lower average truthiness, but the active ingredient is not Republicanism but non-Senatorism. If we look at self-identifying white Senators we see four with essentially the same numbers, one high man in Kaine and one low man in Ted "Don't Call Me Hispanic" (http://www.latinpost.com/articles/115824/20160219/why-ted-cruz-feels-shouldnt-called-hispanic-presidential-candidate.htm) Cruz. If we look at all Representatives in this sample they're all poor - clearly voters hold Senators to higher standards. This also explains how the only person to hold none of these offices is by far the lowest - he has never had to run for re-election, so he has never had to be held accountable by voters.

[time4fun]

You can't one week cite buzzfeed and say its the content that matters and then the next say its the site that matters and not the content.

FYI BuzzFeed News was a finalist in this year's Pulitzer prizes.

There goes the "They're not real news" schtick.

[drauz]

FYI BuzzFeed News was a finalist in this year's Pulitzer prizes.

There goes the "They're not real news" schtick.

Would you consider the National Enquirer a reputable news source?

[time4fun]

Would you consider the National Enquirer a reputable news source?

There's a key difference between the two- one has routinely been caught publishing falsehoods and one hasn't. BuzzFeed News has been breaking some big stories and hasn't had issues with inaccurate reporting.

That does actually matter.

[drauz]

That does actually matter.

It seems like it only matters when you want it to.

[time4fun]

It seems like it only matters when you want it to.

Uh. No, that actually matters all the time.

The fact that the Right has gotten itself into a bizarre spiral where beliefs matter more than facts, and where anything that doesn't support your worldview must be "fake" doesn't change the fact that not all news sources are made alike, and if you're quoting right wing opinion sites but turning your nose up at legitimate news sites...something is VERY wrong.

[drauz]

Uh. No, that actually matters all the time.

The fact that the Right has gotten itself into a bizarre spiral where beliefs matter more than facts, and where anything that doesn't support your worldview must be "fake" doesn't change the fact that not all news sources are made alike, and if you're quoting right wing opinion sites but turning your nose up at legitimate news sites...something is VERY wrong.

While Buzzfeed might have gained a little notoriety I still don't think they are completely reliable. You seem to think they are. I posted one right wing blog that posted a bunch of claims with sources. Everyone immediately attacked the source instead of the substance. When given the exact same situation (but with something that confirmed your beliefs) you say "look at the substance". So which is it.

I don't turn my nose up at WaPo, NYT, etc. The overwhelming majority of what I quote are reputable sources. I do turn my nose up at Buzzfeed. There is a reason why Brian Williams is a joke now. You don't get to lie and then expect everyone to act like nothing happened. His reputation is tarnished forever.

[Neveragain]

Uh. No, that actually matters all the time.

The fact that the Right has gotten itself into a bizarre spiral where beliefs matter more than facts, and where anything that doesn't support your worldview must be "fake" doesn't change the fact that not all news sources are made alike, and if you're quoting right wing opinion sites but turning your nose up at legitimate news sites...something is VERY wrong.

White House: Republican
Senate: Republican
House: Republican

8460

These are the FACTS that matter.

[time4fun]

While Buzzfeed might have gained a little notoriety I still don't think they are completely reliable. You seem to think they are. I posted one right wing blog that posted a bunch of claims with sources. Everyone immediately attacked the source instead of the substance. When given the exact same situation (but with something that confirmed your beliefs) you say "look at the substance". So which is it.

I don't turn my nose up at WaPo, NYT, etc. I do turn my nose up at Buzzfeed. There is a reason why Brian Williams is a joke now. You don't get to lie and then expect everyone to act like nothing happened. His reputation is tarnished forever.

But you're playing the "I think therefore it is" game here. It's fine to say BuzzFeed news isn't reputable, but you need to back up that claim with something concrete and ideally fact checked. It doesn't get to be disreputable because you've decided it is. It's the same thing PB and Rockstar have done with Politifact. They don't believe it's legitimate, and therefore it is not despite no credible evidence that it isn't.

And I read the article you posted. It was ridiculous. Not only did it fly in the face of every fact checker out there, but it played a series of bizarre mind games that weren't grounded in reality. Faulting Snopes for focusing in on her laughing about the outcome of the case, for example, made no sense given that snopes was specifically responding to the the faulty claim that she was laughing about the outcome of the case. And the author of the article completely ignores the parts of the interview where Clinton talks about how sad it was that she had to have him plea down to a lesser charge because the evidence was bungled. (It's also VERY clear that the author never listened to the actual audio)

Likewise, the author completely ignored the fact that the man pleaded guilty to charges of fondling a minor. It made it appear as though Clinton was trying to argue that the entire situation was made up instead of the reality- which is that it DID happen, but there wasn't enough evidence to convict at a higher level. She never argued nothing happened, and the snippet of the affidavit they cited missed the entirety of the argument and didn't actually say what the author argued it said.

Basically the author's analysis diverged from every reputable fact checker for a reason. Their analysis was highly misleading.

And there was nothing in there to actually call into question all of Snopes.

[drauz]

But you're playing the "I think therefore it is" game here. It's fine to say BuzzFeed news isn't reputable, but you need to back up that claim with something concrete and ideally fact checked. It doesn't get to be disreputable because you've decided it is. It's the same thing PB and Rockstar have done with Politifact. They don't believe it's legitimate, and therefore it is not despite no credible evidence that it isn't.

And I read the article you posted. It was ridiculous. Not only did it fly in the face of every fact checker out there, but it played a series of bizarre mind games that weren't grounded in reality. Faulting Snopes for focusing in on her laughing about the outcome of the case, for example, made no sense given that snopes was specifically responding to the the faulty claim that she was laughing about the outcome of the case. And the author of the article completely ignores the parts of the interview where Clinton talks about how sad it was that she had to have him plea down to a lesser charge because the evidence was bungled. (It's also VERY clear that the author never listened to the actual audio)

Likewise, the author completely ignored the fact that the man pleaded guilty to charges of fondling a minor. It made it appear as though Clinton was trying to argue that the entire situation was made up instead of the reality- which is that it DID happen, but there wasn't enough evidence to convict at a higher level. She never argued nothing happened, and the snippet of the affidavit they cited missed the entirety of the argument and didn't actually say what the author argued it said.

Basically the author's analysis diverged from every reputable fact checker for a reason. Their analysis was highly misleading.

And there was nothing in there to actually call into question all of Snopes.

Let me put it this way. If Pizza Hut started making TVs, would you buy one on the first day? They might be the best TV that has ever been made or it could be the biggest piece of shit ever. I would let some time pass and get more and more reviews before considering purchasing one.

This is how I look at Buzzfeed. They are the new kid on the block, they don't start out with a AAA rating. They start at tabloid level respectability and have to earn a spot at the reputable table. Where we differ is that I don't think they've earned that spot by a country mile.

[Gelston]

Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for being elected. Don't rest your laurels on awards, he was one if our bloodiest Presidents in recent years.

[Parkbandit]

There's a key difference between the two- one has routinely been caught publishing falsehoods and one hasn't. BuzzFeed News has been breaking some big stories and hasn't had issues with inaccurate reporting.

That does actually matter.

Wait, didn't Buzzfeed just publish the made up story that Trump was in Moscow pissing on a bed that President Obama was once in and Trump decided to hire a bunch of hookers to piss all over the bed?

YOUR idea of real news: Anything that prints up something you agree with is REAL NEWS!

You are clenching ahold of that belt with every ounce of strength.

I don't think you have to worry much.

[Wrathbringer]

Uh. No, that actually matters all the time.

The fact that the Right has gotten itself into a bizarre spiral where beliefs matter more than facts, and where anything that doesn't support your worldview must be "fake" doesn't change the fact that not all news sources are made alike, and if you're quoting right wing opinion sites but turning your nose up at legitimate news sites...something is VERY wrong.

You're retarded.

[Back]

Wait, didn't Buzzfeed just publish the made up story that Trump was in Moscow pissing on a bed that President Obama was once in and Trump decided to hire a bunch of hookers to piss all over the bed?

You think Buzzfeed just made that up out of the blue and thought they could legally print it without repercussion? I worry about your gullibility.

[Wrathbringer]

You think Buzzfeed just made that up out of the blue and thought they could legally print it without repercussion? I worry about your gullibility.

HEY GUYS IT'S DRUNK TUESDAY WITH YOUR HOST, BACK!

[time4fun]

Let me put it this way. If Pizza Hut started making TVs, would you buy one on the first day? They might be the best TV that has ever been made or it could be the biggest piece of shit ever. I would let some time pass and get more and more reviews before considering purchasing one.

This is how I look at Buzzfeed. They are the new kid on the block, they don't start out with a AAA rating. They start at tabloid level respectability and have to earn a spot at the reputable table. Where we differ is that I don't think they've earned that spot by a country mile.

Yes, but in this case the Pulitzer board- the gold standard in journalism- has issued its rating.

So the analogy fails a key test: they already got their AAA rating.

[time4fun]

Wait, didn't Buzzfeed just publish the made up story that Trump was in Moscow pissing on a bed that President Obama was once in and Trump decided to hire a bunch of hookers to piss all over the bed?

YOUR idea of real news: Anything that prints up something you agree with is REAL NEWS!

You are clenching ahold of that belt with every ounce of strength.

I don't think you have to worry much.

This is like a TGo post. It has a lot of relevant words, but it has only a passing resemblance to the truth.

For example, the BuzzFeed article posted an unverified dossier that was running around in intelligence and media circles. The dossier was from a reputable source, so people were looking into it. But some claims looked more reliable than others.

And that's how BuzzFeed introduced it.

Which means your post is the only fake information on the subject in this thread.

Oh, and several items on the dossier have turned out to be accurate.

[drauz]

Yes, but in this case the Pulitzer board- the gold standard in journalism- has issued its rating.

So the analogy fails a key test: they already got their AAA rating.

One journalist. See it done consistently and that is called a reputation.

[Methais]

LOL.

I remember when I was this naive... I was 4 I think.

What an adorable age...

YOU GOT DRUNK WHEN YOU WERE 4??????????????????????!?!//';U

[Methais]

Uh. No, that actually matters all the time.

The fact that the Right has gotten itself into a bizarre spiral where beliefs matter more than facts, and where anything that doesn't support your worldview must be "fake" doesn't change the fact that not all news sources are made alike, and if you're quoting right wing opinion sites but turning your nose up at legitimate news sites...something is VERY wrong.

This has to be the most hilarious thing you've posted in at least 28 hours.

Sometimes I think Back has a transgender split personality and you're the other personality.

[Parkbandit]

This is like a TGo post. It has a lot of relevant words, but it has only a passing resemblance to the truth.

For example, the BuzzFeed article posted an unverified dossier that was running around in intelligence and media circles. The dossier was from a reputable source, so people were looking into it. But some claims looked more reliable than others.

And that's how BuzzFeed introduced it.

Which means your post is the only fake information on the subject in this thread.

Oh, and several items on the dossier have turned out to be accurate.

Reputable news sources didn't publish it because it was clearly fake. But Buzzfeed did because their standards are much lower because their reader base doesn't care as long as it fits their little snowflake viewpoint.

No wonder you and Backlash believe they are reputable.

[Parkbandit]

This has to be the most hilarious thing you've posted in at least 28 hours.

Sometimes I think Back has a transgender split personality and you're the other personality.

Wait.. Backlash is the guy or time4fun is?

[Androidpk]

Wait.. Backlash is the guy or time4fun is?

Back is her brother.

[Gelston]

Back is her brother.

He is an illegal?

[Methais]

Wait.. Backlash is the guy or time4fun is?

All I know is at least one of them, possibly both, is a retard. And disabled. And poor. And black. And gay. And transgender. And a woman.

His/her words, not mine.

I can't tell either of them apart though.

[Parkbandit]

Back is her brother.

There must be a common ancestor there somewhere... that kind of stupid doesn't just happen.

[Back]

Nice way to deflect. You call into question both Buzzfeed's credibility and the dossier's reliability. Well, both have proved themselves to be accurate and not without some fault. But that does not take away from what they both get right.

Obviously the argument here is who thinks which sources are the most reliable and why. I have no issues with how I consume information on the internet. I worry about other people though.

The link I posted a page or two back about tracking news stories, the inevitable "alternative" narratives to those stories, and by whom and how they are spread clearly shows a network of click-bait revenue generating bots linking to certain "alternative" facts sites and spreading those stories through social media. It's pretty fascinating how people are so easy to manipulate.

[drauz]

The link I posted a page or two back about tracking news stories, the inevitable "alternative" narratives to those stories, and by whom and how they are spread clearly shows a network of click-bait revenue generating bots linking to certain "alternative" facts sites and spreading those stories through social media. It's pretty fascinating how people are so easy to manipulate.

Complains about click bait fact sites. Yet thinks Buzzfeed is a reputable news source.

[Destrier]

Google fact check, best Gemstone profession.


Ranger.

Sweet

[Candor]

Google fact check, best Gemstone profession.


Ranger.

Sweet

And if THAT doesn't prove something is wrong with Google fact check...:)...

[~Rocktar~]

Google fact check, best Gemstone profession.


Ranger.

Sweet


And if THAT doesn't prove something is wrong with Google fact check...:)...

QTFT

[Back]

Complains about click bait fact sites. Yet thinks Buzzfeed is a reputable news source.

Yup! I absolutely do. And I would agree that Buzzfeed is click-bait as well. I guess I should define what I mean about click-bait in terms of this discussion about were we get our information. I mean sites that proliferate social media with misinformation designed to appeal to all political spectrums without any other clear motivation than generating money such as nodisinfo.com.

[Parkbandit]

Nice way to deflect. You call into question both Buzzfeed's credibility and the dossier's reliability. Well, both have proved themselves to be accurate and not without some fault. But that does not take away from what they both get right.

The "dossier" was proven fake. Hell, it even looks fake to an untrained eye. Buzzfeed printed it anyway.. with the caveat "Um, it might be fake". That's not journalism.


I have no issues with how I consume information on the internet. I worry about other people though.

And this is what makes you a liberal. YOU believe YOU are above everyone else that disagrees with you. YOU know what's best for you and YOU know what's best for everyone else.

Hilarious... especially given your posting history here.


The link I posted a page or two back about tracking news stories, the inevitable "alternative" narratives to those stories, and by whom and how they are spread clearly shows a network of click-bait revenue generating bots linking to certain "alternative" facts sites and spreading those stories through social media. It's pretty fascinating how people are so easy to manipulate.

Wait... your argument is that Buzzfeed is a real news source because the other sites are nothing more than a network of click-baiters?

Are you being serious or are you trying to get a title shot with time4fun???

[Warriorbird]

And this is what makes you basically everybody in the PC Politics folder. YOU believe YOU are above everyone else that disagrees with you. YOU know what's best for you and YOU know what's best for everyone else.

You're better than this Backlash. Come on!

[Parkbandit]

Buzzfeed Trending Now! People, this is REAL JOURNALISM! I really want to find out what girls do by themselves and don't tell us! SPOILER ALERT: #9 is Masturbating with something not designed for that purpose.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jeffbarron/things-to-keep-you-from-wanting-to-kill-your-roommate

https://www.buzzfeed.com/perpetua/yellow-umbrella

https://www.buzzfeed.com/michelleregna/open-a-restaurant-and-well-guess-what-season-you-were-born

https://www.buzzfeed.com/pablovaldivia/cant-stop-sweating

https://www.buzzfeed.com/thecasefiles/pack-your-ultimate-90s-lunch-and-well-tell-you-w-2sx1z

https://www.buzzfeed.com/beckybarnicoat/things-all-girls-secretly-do-alone

[Back]

The "dossier" was proven fake.

Link?

I can provide links that confirm parts of it. Just Google "Trump Dossier Confirmed".


Hell, it even looks fake to an untrained eye. Buzzfeed printed it anyway.. with the caveat "Um, it might be fake". That's not journalism.

Buzzfeed was criticized for publishing what had already been circulating around Washington and the press for months. While other news outlets had the dossier they did not publish it because they could not verify everything in it. Buzzfeed's decision, knowing the fallout that would come with it, was to publish it for the rest of the public.

We can argue all day about whether that was a good idea or not but it does not disqualify the fact that the dossier exists and that some of the information in it has been corroborated.


And this is what makes you a liberal. YOU believe YOU are above everyone else that disagrees with you. YOU know what's best for you and YOU know what's best for everyone else.

I admit that I think I know whats best for me and I have pretty strong opinions about whats good for everybody. You got me!

Everyone does that. You're trying to tell me you know better than me what I am all about. That's pretty crazy huh? Or people who think they have the right to tell other people what they can and can't do with their own bodies for example, or who they can marry, or how many hours they should work for how much money, and on and on and on... Don't even try to tell me you aren't describing a conservative also.

Thats how democracy works. We all voice an opinion and compromise.

For you to even attempt to lecture me or give me your holier than thou bullshit is the real joke.


Wait... your argument is that Buzzfeed is a real news source because the other sites are nothing more than a network of click-baiters?

Yes. How many times do I have to say it? I think Buzzfeed News is very different from sites like infowars.com, nodisinfo.com, and celebtricity.com as a few examples. Check them out. Its not hard to see the difference.

Seriously... read this link. https://medium.com/hci-design-at-uw/information-wars-a-window-into-the-alternative-media-ecosystem-a1347f32fd8f It's a real eye-opener for anyone who is interested in politics, social media, and fake news.

[Parkbandit]

Link?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/01/13/the-trump-dossier-is-false-news-and-heres-why/#1a52e0e36867


I can provide links that confirm parts of it. Just Google "Trump Dossier Confirmed".

Well that proves it! I mean, if a search result comes up, then it's proven!


Buzzfeed was criticized for publishing what had already been circulating around Washington and the press for months. While other news outlets had the dossier they did not publish it because they could not verify everything in it. Buzzfeed's decision, knowing the fallout that would come with it, was to publish it for the rest of the public.

Exactly. Other reputable news outlets VERIFY their facts prior to going to print. Buzzfeed was like "Well, we can publish this or the "Top 10 Foods to eat underwater".. we hate Trump, so let's DO THIS!"

Buzzfeed isn't a reputable source... anymore than the National Enquirer is. That doesn't mean you should never go there to figure out which of Brady Bunch characters you most seem like.


We can argue all day about whether that was a good idea or not but it does not disqualify the fact that the dossier exists and that some of the information in it has been corroborated.

There is a hotel in Moscow that President Obama once stayed at.. and Trump also stayed at that same hotel... using those facts doesn't support the general premise of the dossier.

"BUT SOME STUFF WAS TRUE!" is a retarded argument, given that it's been debunked as bullshit.


I admit that I think I know whats best for me and I have pretty strong opinions about whats good for everybody. You got me!

Everyone does that. You're trying to tell me you know better than me what I am all about. That's pretty crazy huh? Or people who think they have the right to tell other people what they can and can't do with their own bodies for example, or who they can marry, or how many hours they should work for how much money, and on and on and on... Don't even try to tell me you aren't describing a conservative also.

Thats how democracy works. We all voice an opinion and compromise.

For you to even attempt to lecture me or give me your holier than thou bullshit is the real joke.

I wasn't lecturing you. I just find it hilariously amusing that someone with your posting history here would state that you know how to consume information on the Internet (as you are actually arguing that Buzzfeed is a news site....................................) but you don't believe other people are as enlightened as you are to decide for themselves.


Yes. How many times do I have to say it? I think Buzzfeed News is very different from sites like infowars.com, nodisinfo.com, and celebtricity.com as a few examples. Check them out. Its not hard to see the difference.

Seriously... read this link. https://medium.com/hci-design-at-uw/information-wars-a-window-into-the-alternative-media-ecosystem-a1347f32fd8f It's a real eye-opener for anyone who is interested in politics, social media, and fake news.

Is someone arguing that infowars.com is a legitimate and reputable news site? I must have missed it.

You, on the other hand, have said that Buzzfeed is.

But seriously, stick to Buzzfeed. It has pretty pictures and fun quizes!!!

[drauz]

http://i.imgur.com/WVeH43e.png

[Back]

drauz wins.