The Ledge

Go Back   The Ledge > Main Forums > Chit Chat
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read


Make the Ads Go Away! Click here.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-16-2016, 07:06 PM
olive olive is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Global
Posts: 2,615
Default Fake News Sites

I am not looking to debate ,argue or discuss or responding to this or looking to stir the pot



Just passing information that google ( and facebook ) are combating - blocking - cutting ad revenue



here is the link in case you want to check

CATEGORY 1: Below is a list of fake, false, or regularly misleading websites that are shared on Facebook and social media. Some of these websites may rely on “outrage” by using distorted headlines and decontextualized or dubious information in order to generate likes, shares, and profits. These websites are categorized with the number 1 next to them.


CATEGORY 2: Some websites on this list may circulate misleading and/or potentially unreliable information, and they are marked with a 2.


CATEGORY 3: Other websites on this list sometimes use clickbait-y headlines and social media descriptions, and they are marked with a 3.


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...1ZyitM/preview

Last edited by olive; 11-16-2016 at 07:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
.
  #2  
Old 11-16-2016, 11:41 PM
becca's Avatar
becca becca is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 939
Default

It's vitally important in this supposed information age that people be able to get genuine information. Someone could write an interesting book about the U.S. FCC act and mail regulations of the past and how they have eroded and not applied to so-called new media. Maybe one day someone will while it might do some good. Spin, slant, infotainment etc. have never been more prominent and actually the youngest people are the more aware in my experience and really I'd have thought it would be older people to be more critical/conservative about what they take in. That is one hopeful note anyway.

My uncle is older and on facebook more than anyone, and the one person in our family to have adopted some very radial ideas causing a falling out not unlike what many in the U.S. are experiencing (and in the U.K. around Brexit). It now comes out that a lot of 'fake news' was being spread/targeted through facebook (I never have signed up and barely looked at it over the years). He seemed to come out with different 'facts' from anyone else a lot and become irritable when others would question things he was outraged over, and these were mostly non-Canadian things. You'd think eventually people would be outraged-out, but maybe that explains those people dropping out? I doubt there are simple answers but democracies do depend on people having access to real information to make informed choices. They say many U.K. voters were not and thus made a reactionary decision based not on full or correct info. We bear much of the responsibility in informing ourselves and hopefully people can and will learn how to do that. It may not be entertaining, exciting or simple but it's our responsibility. Just knowing is doing something. Many long-standing media concerns go to a lot of expense and effort to verify facts, they have records you can look into and judge them by, and to not respect and value them is a huge mistake. Believe me.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-17-2016, 12:32 AM
iamnotafraid iamnotafraid is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,850
Default

A very dangerous situation to be in. Who decides?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-17-2016, 09:47 AM
Wdm6789 Wdm6789 is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,025
Default

Why should google and Facebook decide what is real and what is fake news? Why should they decide what news we see and what we don't see? I noticed most of the things on that list are either conservatively biased or liberally biased news websites. I don't think it's up to Facebook and google to dictate what we read. In my opinion, there is no real news anymore. Just what the "illuminati", for lack of a better term, want us to see. Most of the news sites Facebook and google listed are anti mainstream media and have stories we won't see through mainstream media. I find it very troubling and suspicious that Facebook and google are trying to hide them.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-17-2016, 11:49 AM
Macfanforever's Avatar
Macfanforever Macfanforever is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Wallyworld CT
Posts: 10,537
Default

I'm not surprised with the internet.Most is fabricated.That why its hard to believe those Stevie/FM interviews and articles that pop up in my Google News page and some that were posted on here.TV news media is at its worse.I'm waiting for one of news outlets to pick up Stevie' cursing DC show and twist it to make it as she was pissed off at somebody in the band or a audience member.
__________________
Skip R........

Stevie fan forever and ever amen.......
the Wildheart at Edge of Seventeen and the Gypsy.....

My sweet Buttons .I love you. RIP 2009 to 08/24/2016
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-17-2016, 03:43 PM
becca's Avatar
becca becca is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 939
Default

The question of who chooses, at least in a capitalist democracy, would be who stays around and prospers based on the 'votes' of people paying them (advertises, subscribers etc.). But I think the benefits of some basic regulations to keep sheer propagandistic and deliberate misinformation (take for example the vaccines connected to autism scare) from being distributed or broadcast has been proven. Today too some seem to feel balance is putting on two extreme positions, I don't see a balance of having on say one wind power will save us all character on to 'debate' one climate change denier when the actual scientific community (boringly, and non-ratings grabbingly) is actually 99 accredited people saying something is happening and one scientist paid by an oil company saying it isn't. In the sense that information is either representative of reality as much as it can be or deliberately leaves things out or exaggerates there can be some regulations. You could say libel lawsuits are a form of regulation but this is after the fact policing rather than preventative and also dependent on having the funds to prosecute something legally. Also a forest can't represent itself directly if something untrue had been said about it being in danger, just a group of people who find some value in the forest. We've seen regulations imposed to limit nuisance lawsuits availble to those with the money or lawers looking to make work.

There is certainly a place for opinion seperate from news, but we're talking about things being manipulative not as opinion but as fact. I understand that under previous FCC regulations certain infotainment type programs would not have been allowed, and the reducing of it's regulations by both major parties changed that. The FCC as an 'illimunati' is something I haven't heard of except that under Nixon I understand it was used to harass political enemies (and he also used the IRS that way which was unprecedented). Mostly people don't seem to think about the FCC much at all anymore, I can't remember the last time I saw one of it's messages on commercial U.S. tv stations while in Canada stations are required to run CRTC spots telling where people can send concerns about the station. Ideally there is a board including broadcasters deciding on the terms of regulation, with television and radio that meant broadcasting licenses not renewed if there were many violations and with print the ability to distribute by mail, but with the internet not included things have unraveled. Freedom or a free for all? Do you allow a car company to make and sell a dangerous if cheap sub-par vehicle and wait only to redress things afterward, or do you try to prevent that? I think it's fair to say that generally in many countries a need for a restoration of regulation of some kind has been proven without going overboard into a nanny state regulating to the nth degree violence in comic books or forbidden words ala Lenny Bruce and George Carlin. People have a right to real data. North Korea or communist China would be a couple of examples of places without that.

Even a game of baseball has some agreed to ground rules. Would say that if you 'de-regulated' it that then everyone would win, or that nobody could win?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-17-2016, 05:18 PM
Macfanforever's Avatar
Macfanforever Macfanforever is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Wallyworld CT
Posts: 10,537
Default

The first amendment ,Freedom of speech and freedom of the press gives them the freedom what to report and say. The FCC is so relaxed on any of the content that goes over the airwaves.George Carlin's 7 words is almost to none now on the radio and TV.


__________________
Skip R........

Stevie fan forever and ever amen.......
the Wildheart at Edge of Seventeen and the Gypsy.....

My sweet Buttons .I love you. RIP 2009 to 08/24/2016
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-21-2016, 03:10 PM
SisterNightroad's Avatar
SisterNightroad SisterNightroad is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Italy
Posts: 5,242
Default

For those who were wondering how Facebook identifies the fake news sites I just stumbled upon an italian article and apparently they controlled the Internet Protocol addresses of those who set up the sites and they matched with that of groups of teenagers.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-22-2016, 02:31 PM
elle's Avatar
elle elle is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: DC
Posts: 12,150
Default

thanks for starting the thread.

not sure how scientific or true this is, but there are some stats pointing towards mostly middle aged and older people as main spreaders of these fake news links. many times people don't even read what's on the site beyond the first paragraph or so and just share whatever fits into the picture of the world as they see it.

younger people who grew up with internet have in most cases been taught to critically sift through the news and differentiate between fake and real sources.
__________________

"kind of weird: a tribute to the dearly departed from a band that can treat its living like trash"
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-23-2016, 06:01 PM
iamnotafraid iamnotafraid is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,850
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elle View Post
younger people who grew up with internet have in most cases been taught to critically sift through the news and differentiate between fake and real sources.
I think most people of all ages are lazy
and only read the headlines.

Fake News is a serious problem. But again
I say it's a very dangerous thing who decides
for us.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-26-2016, 04:30 PM
Dr.Brown Dr.Brown is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotafraid View Post
A very dangerous situation to be in. Who decides?
A very critical question. The following article offers much food for thought regarding those behind the push to label and dismiss sites as "Fake News":
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/...y-shady-group/
__________________
. .
...

.
.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-26-2016, 07:59 PM
becca's Avatar
becca becca is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 939
Default

Facts are not something decided upon, something is either true or not, complete or incomplete. Experience tells me that long-standing media have track records on their reporting whereas ones I've never encountered before may well not.

Generally if people would also (re)learn to choose less 'entertaining' or emotion-charged sources I think they'd be better served. This used to be the conservative approach, the if it's not broken why fix it school. You can get a sort of crude balance with all sorts of extremes and fanatics with simple headlines but why not have regulations requiring due diligence from licensed publishers and broadcasters, some of which we've undercut or dispensed with and some never applied to so-called electronic media. It's a bit like Uber vs. taxi companies with standard, insurance which pay taxes. Air B&B vs. hotels. Also air safety, safe roads and environmental regulation for the benefit of all, where do you draw the line at throwing out the old ways? Is a safe media something we can have or should it be wide open no rules because of the internet?

Who decides: we the people, same as in a civilization representatives we choose draw up parks on maps and budgets for public schools etc. I really don't understand the desires to open every aspect of modern life for question, surely some things have proven themselves over time and others have been shown not to work. We could have a postal delivery system throughout the depression but now some talk about snail mail's days being numbered while e-commerce keeps growing.

I remember an old Skip Williamson underground comic book where they asked a hippie with a reefer what he was going to replace 'the system' with once it was dismantled. He replied "Donald Duck". 'Twas ever thus says Mr. Natural. (sigh)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-27-2016, 09:07 PM
Dr.Brown Dr.Brown is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by becca View Post
Facts are not something decided upon, something is either true or not, complete or incomplete.
Totally agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by becca View Post
Experience tells me that long-standing media have track records on their reporting whereas ones I've never encountered before may well not.
Yes, by their very nature long-standing media will have track records on their reporting and others will not. There is no direct correlation regarding the accuracy of a specific report from either though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by becca View Post
Generally if people would also (re)learn to choose less 'entertaining' or emotion-charged sources I think they'd be better served.
But the reality is that this seems to be the preference for most people, regardless of political ideology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by becca View Post
This used to be the conservative approach, the if it's not broken why fix it school. You can get a sort of crude balance with all sorts of extremes and fanatics with simple headlines but why not have regulations requiring due diligence from licensed publishers and broadcasters, some of which we've undercut or dispensed with and some never applied to so-called electronic media. It's a bit like Uber vs. taxi companies with standard, insurance which pay taxes. Air B&B vs. hotels. Also air safety, safe roads and environmental regulation for the benefit of all, where do you draw the line at throwing out the old ways? Is a safe media something we can have or should it be wide open no rules because of the internet?

Who decides: we the people, same as in a civilization representatives we choose draw up parks on maps and budgets for public schools etc. I really don't understand the desires to open every aspect of modern life for question, surely some things have proven themselves over time and others have been shown not to work. We could have a postal delivery system throughout the depression but now some talk about snail mail's days being numbered while e-commerce keeps growing.
Similar concerns/arguments were quite common following the invention of the printing press which enabled the mass distribution of information/literature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by becca View Post
I remember an old Skip Williamson underground comic book where they asked a hippie with a reefer what he was going to replace 'the system' with once it was dismantled. He replied "Donald Duck". 'Twas ever thus says Mr. Natural. (sigh)
Funny, since the character of "Donald Duck" is the intellectual property of the Walt Disney Corporation which owns many media outlets (including ABC Television and its news division), a licensing agreement would be required in order for this replacement system to be established.
__________________
. .
...

.
.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-28-2016, 12:00 AM
Macfanforever's Avatar
Macfanforever Macfanforever is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Wallyworld CT
Posts: 10,537
Default

I probably get more news in watching a Saturday Night skit then watching any of the big 4 nets and cable news networks.
__________________
Skip R........

Stevie fan forever and ever amen.......
the Wildheart at Edge of Seventeen and the Gypsy.....

My sweet Buttons .I love you. RIP 2009 to 08/24/2016
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-01-2016, 12:52 PM
AlexD AlexD is offline
Addicted Ledgie
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 255
Default

Top fake news sites...

CNN
Buzzfeed
MSNBC
NY Times
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Billy Burnette - Billy Burnette [New CD] Rmst, Reissue picture

Billy Burnette - Billy Burnette [New CD] Rmst, Reissue

$15.38



Billy Burnette - Memphis in Manhattan ***PROMO*** 2006 Release picture

Billy Burnette - Memphis in Manhattan ***PROMO*** 2006 Release

$19.99



BILLY BURNETTE S/T Self-Titled  1980 Columbia In Shrink w/Hype Sticker Rock  NM picture

BILLY BURNETTE S/T Self-Titled 1980 Columbia In Shrink w/Hype Sticker Rock NM

$11.99



Billy Burnette - Billy Burnette [Used Very Good CD] Rmst, Reissue picture

Billy Burnette - Billy Burnette [Used Very Good CD] Rmst, Reissue

$12.47



Billy Burnette, Tangled Up In Texas / Into The Storm, 7

Billy Burnette, Tangled Up In Texas / Into The Storm, 7" 45rpm, Vinyl NM

$12.99




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1995-2003 Martin and Lisa Adelson, All Rights Reserved