by Uncola for TheBurningPlatform.com
On December 15th, 2016 Facebook announced a series of measures designed to address what they have termed the “issue of fake news and hoaxes”. The assault on fake news by Facebook will consist of four initiatives including: Easier reporting by readers, flagging stories as disputed, informed sharing and disrupting financial incentives for spammers.
If Facebook readers, in their infinite wisdom, decide a certain shared story is a hoax, they can simply click the right hand corner of the post. This is great. Why, it might even make the Facebook community a last line of defense in the online information war. I don’t know about you, but I, for one, am going to sleep much better knowing this. What could go wrong?
Next, in order to flag any story as fake news, Facebook has started a program working with third-party fact checking organizations that are “signatories of Poynter’s International Fact Checking Code of Principles”.
Thirdly, “Informed Sharing” is explained by Facebook in this way:
We’re always looking to improve News Feed by listening to what the community is telling us. We’ve found that if reading an article makes people significantly less likely to share it, that may be a sign that a story has misled people in some way. We’re going to test incorporating this signal into ranking, specifically for articles that are outliers, where people who read the article are significantly less likely to share it.
This should really help lessen the spread of fake news. No doubt. Who knows, it might even be a great way to suppress stories that are true, as well; should they offend the delicate sensitivities of certain snowflakes on Facebook and also be deemed unworthy by the Poynter International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). What a deal. Let us thank the Lords above as our Watchers and Protectors look out for the rest of us down here, below.
Finally, the disrupting of spammers is necessary in order to prevent websites “masquerading as well-known news organizations” in order to make sure the stories viewed on Facebook are “authentic and meaningful”. Who wouldn’t want this? Obviously, “spammers” have become the new “niggers”. Of course they belong in an online ghetto in order to assure the prosperity of the pure, the “authentic” and the “meaningful”.
As you probably have perceived by now, these measures will completely hinge upon the review and final judgement of Facebook’s so called fact checkers. But who are they?
Well, so far, it looks like Politifact is joining Facebook in the fight against fake news and Snopes is only too happy to lend a hand as well.
First, let’s consider Politifact. According to Wikipedia, Politifact.com is owned by the Tampa Bay Times and the Tampa Bay Times is owned by the Times Publishing Company. Guess who owns the Times Publishing Company? Why, no other than the Poynter Institute who is, evidently, very good at losing money. This is no problem though, because the aforementioned Poynter International Fact Checking Network (IFCN) has some very wealthy benefactors. According to multiple fake news sources, including Breitbart:
IFCN is hosted by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. A cursory search of the Poynter Institute website finds that Poynter’s IFCN is openly funded by Soros’ Open Society Foundations as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, and the National Endowment for Democracy.
I suppose Breitbart should not be reporting this information. No doubt these facts would be deemed by Facebook as not “authentic and meaningful”. No wonder American companies like Kellogg and Allstate are pulling their advertising from Breitbart. How else could they meet Facebook’s new censorship standards? It’s just business.
Soon, with search engines like Google and Facebook banning fake news websites maybe the fake news from Breitbart will no longer even appear in online search rankings.
Don’t think Google is biased? Think again. Anyone who searched Google regarding the health of Hillary Clinton after her collapse at the 911 Memorial in New York City this year can testify first hand to the bias of Google’s favored candidate. In September, I wrote an essay on the mainstream media’s reporting of Hillary’s health entitled “Hear No Evil. See No Evil. Vote No Evil.” In researching this article I was amazed at how the Google searches were completely biased and how the Snopes and Politifact narratives ranked as the top listings. In fact, they all seemed to give Hillary an A+ for vigor, energy and enthusiasm. I wasn’t the only one to notice the bias either, as it was also reported in the national media at the time. Still, even today, Snopes claims any Google search bias to be false.
In spite of what Snopes says, there does appear to be obvious collusion between Google and the fact checker websites. Years ago, my day job required working with programmers in Silicon Valley and India who specialized in Search Engine Optimization (SEO) in order to elevate the rankings of websites. In fact, before I went Galt in 2011, my company consistently ranked number one in Google searches for my chosen field and had done so since 2003. Just to give you an idea, I just now Google searched the most common keywords for my company’s specific expertise and this is what it said at the top of the page:
About 163,000,000 results (0.95 seconds)
That shows you the level of competition in my business field. At one time during the mid-2000’s I was additionally spending thousands of dollars a month on Google AdWords to support various commercial endeavors. Here, I learned two things:
1.) Google can immediately optimize a website for their Adwords that would normally take days or weeks to elevate rankings through normal SEO procedures
And
2.) Google was committing click fraud
Regarding # 2 above, I have documentation that absolutely proves Google was being dishonest in their Adwords program. They later admitted it under duress to the tune of $90 million.
This is why I would not be unsurprised to see collusion on the part of Google and the fact checkers. As I stated above, in my experience, whenever I arranged to optimize a website to increase SEO rankings it would take days or weeks for the measures to propagate on the web. But the fact checkers don’t seem to have this delay with Google. Why?
A few years ago Google tweaked their search algorithms to account for “relevancy” primarily in accordance to corresponding websites. In other words, it used to be the terms and keywords on your own website that took precedence; but now, Google increases search horsepower based more upon what other websites say about you.
Could this be how Google is boosting the PageRank of certain fact checker websites? I am not sure. But there does seem to be something strange going on.
Here is an example. On December 15th, 2016, Donald Trump tweeted this question:
If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?
Within hours, if not minutes, of this Tweet, Google was ranking the Politifact response at the top of the search pages where Politifact identified Trump as a “Pants on Fire” liar: They said:
Only that’s not true. The administration announced its findings a month before Election Day, and the White House’s announcement prompted a memorable exchange at the final presidential debate.
Notice how the fact checker twisted the facts? Trump asked why the White House took so long to “act”. Yet Politifact responded as if the Obama Administration’s announcement was an action. The only reason the White House falsely accused Russia at that time was to mitigate the damage being caused by the WikiLeaks e-mail dumps. Do you think if Hillary would have won the election that Obama would be “acting” the way he is now towards the President Elect regarding the alleged Russian conspiracy? Highly doubtful.
But facts and “fake news” aside, the real story here is how quickly the Politifact response propagated on the web in the form of “top of page” search engine rankings. This could not have been done by the fact checker alone because the searches are conducted through Google. Tell me if this doesn’t seem downright Orwellian.
Now, consider another example showing how SLOW the fact checkers can be when they want to:
On the same day as Trump’s “Russia” Tweet, also on December 15th, 2016: Sheriff Joe Arpaio held a press conference regarding the validity of President Obama’s long-form birth certificate. This was deemed important enough to have placement at the top of the page on another fake news website called the Drudge Report.
Yet, conduct a search on Politifact for “Obama Birth Certificate Sheriff Joe Arpaio” and you only get one hit from June, 2012. Don’t believe me? Here’s a screenshot from tonight, which is now three days later:
Looks like Politifact moves fast when they want to and slow when they don’t. Nope. No bias there.
Now let’s talk about Snopes.com. According to their page on Wikipedia, Snopes was created by Barbara and David Mikkelson in 1995 and currently receives 300,000 visits a day. According to their website, Snopes is named after a family of characters who “appear throughout the works of American writer William Faulkner”.
Do any sort web search on the Mikkelsons and you will get the idea they, and the website they founded, are paragons of independence and piety. You will discover how Barbara Mikkelson is a Canadian citizen and unable to vote in US elections and that David Mikkelson is an independent who once registered as a Republican.
However, on the Snopes.com Frequently Asked Questions page, they address the accuracy of their information as follows:
The research materials we’ve used in the preparation of any particular page are listed in the bibliography displayed at the bottom of that page so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may check those sources for themselves.
Therein lies the rub. In any one of their given “fact checks” they will frequently reference politically left-leaning sources such as CNBC, The New York Times, Politico and Salon. Moreover, they employ political fact-checkers such as Kim Lacapria, who is a known past liberal blogger.
But is Snopes actually biased? Well, in the above example of Sherriff Joe Arpaio’s recent press conference, nothing is currently mentioned in spite of it being reported in the national media this past week.
As I write this tonight, if you queried Obama’s birth certificate on Snopes.com you would see them claim the allegations of forgery as “false” with David’s Mikkelson’s last update being from February, 2014 and citing references from the New York Times, USA Today, Salon as well as other “corporate media” sources. In fact, the page even says this regarding Obama’s long form birth certificate:
Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio produced no new evidence demonstrating that document to be a forgery.
Another interesting perspective regarding Snopes is their attempt to debunk statements made by Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign about Hillary Clinton’s questioning of Obama’s “birther issue” during the 2008 presidential primaries. Snopes labels Trump’s statement as “False”. This this is misleading, to say the least.
Trump said:
Hillary Clinton and her campaign started the birther controversy in 2008. I finished it.
At the time he was deflecting efforts by the Clinton campaign and the corporate media both of whom were attempting to label him as a racist conspiracy freak over the birther issue. But, by bringing up the 2008 campaign, Trump cleverly threw the entire matter back onto Hillary’s “lap”, so to speak.
Anyone paying attention could see through the ruse. Conversely, anyone checking Snopes to verify the media’s reporting of this would see the “False” label at the top of the page and, at a glance, believe Trump to be a liar. However, if you actually read further down the Snopes page, it claims Trump was wrong only on the technicality of Clinton “starting” the birther conspiracy. This is disingenuous. Hillary was, indeed, the first presidential candidate to bring up the controversy of Obama’s birth during an election cycle but, of course, she was not the very first person to mention the subject.
Do you see how that works? Can you understand how the fact checkers can spin their own versions of fake news? And now, it seems Facebook, with the help of Google, will be appointing online foxes in charge of guarding the internet henhouse.
When censorship reigns, who will fact check the fact checkers?
The progressive left at their best. Denial is a mental illness that is causing severe “group think” especially with the millennials. Truthfulness is a virtue of no merit with an ideology of the ends always justify the means, fortunately the truth always finds its’ way. I have no idea what will happen in our Republic because of this lack of trust, but it has a snowballs chance in hell of changing the election. Prepare for chaos!
It is not a Left/Right issue, it is the US Deep State that is run by an oligarchic elite controlled at its core by Wall Street and its intelligence agency jackals. The two major parties are used to distract the people and keep us fighting with each other.
Well,sites like this seem to be “checking”the fact checkers,but,just don’t use as much as possible goog/face/ect.,just cut back on their visits and their add revenue goes down.I would say we as individuals need to check facts on all stories,including ones here to best of ability and choosing to not use sites that censor/outright knowingly lie in their reporting.we caqn also as much reasonable not support businesses that advertise on said sites,yes,a bit of work but,do you want at least a shot at honest stories?
Were possible and have the knowledge,work on alts for the net as the screws continue to clamp down on it,this includes the hackers who bring the dirt out into the light,ohand cut the cable!
I fail to understand why so many people let organizations like Facebook and Snopes decide truth or falsehood for them instead of investigating and deciding for themselves.
As for me, I never let anything from a single source be sufficient to determine the truthfulness of anything, particularly when the information in that source is presented in support of an agenda or position they already hold.
As for the Facebook determining truth of the news by users, well …….. that works two ways.
One problem is that most people inclined to investigate a story for themselves will start with a Google search. The truth – if it can be found at all – will be back on the third page of search results. Even if you use DuckDuckGo, its results will reflect higher traffic at sites that others had found using Google. It takes unique dedication to research things, and most people can’t discern between “Dedicated Uncle Dave” and “Crazy Uncle Dave” – and they’re not mutually exclusive.
FaceBook “readers”??
The truthfulness of any source should always be questioned because of the ability now to instantly put a story or report in motion worldwide in a fraction of a second . Couple this with agenda driven main stream media that is typically progressive left ! There may always be a fragment of truth in the reporting where the lie is what is intentionally left out . This is where the term plausible deniability comes in ! The popularity of this term in Washington has only brought citizens of this once great nation nothing but grief . Once we are able to recognize who is twisting or spinning the truth we must deni them credibility on anything because we know they will lie . When we peal back the layers of the onion we will always find the real facts . As for the big players in the innernet world sensoring what we the great unwashed get to hear and see will always be a challenge . Fact checking has been an issue ever since the development of ink and paper . Remember the phrase you cannot beat someone that buys ink by the barrel !
My great grandmother had another good one regarding politicians and the truth : Those assholes in Washington are all down there scurrying around like cats covering up shit ! I miss the old girl but her wisdom from a lifetime of education from the school of hard knocks is something I learned to treasure .
One of the puzzling things about the alt right is that they claim organizations like the Democratic Party and the NY Times are “the progressive left” or some other appellation. No they are not. They are part of the fake left favored by the rich and professional classes that has absolutely no connection to the historical left which was pro-labor/working class, pro-civil liberties and anti-war and anti-imperial. The mainstream media may be almost completely in favor of the Democratic Party but they are on the opposite side in being anti-working class, pro-war, and anti-civil liberties just for starters. Please just call them what they are–the center right that embraces both the mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans. Sadly, the real left is quiet on the sidelines but you can see traces of it in sites like Counterpunch and Consortium News. You cannot be pro-Hilary and regard yourself to be a leftist.
Completely agree. I also like Counterpunch.org, and also Paleoconservatives (pre neocon and pre William Buckley) but they have almost no web sites (there is some paleoconservative presence at Antiwar.com).
I hope to see the neocons buried along with the neolibs. They are the two sides of neoliberalism that is in its last days.
The Hysterical Left are as plentiful as Dodo birds. Err, did you say Historical Left? I’ve got to get my prescription glasses checked.
The Historical Left sold out to the big boys so long ago that I’m surprised that anyone remembers it. If you see one, take a picture of it. It would make the front page of the National Enquirer.
Media lies and fabrications have been going on ever since there were “journalists” (I use that term loosely).
From “Remember the Maine” in the Spanish-American war (actually a powder magazine explosion–not an attack) to walter duranty’s extolling the “virtues” of communism while one of the greatest “artificially-engineered (by communists)” famines in the Ukraine” was taking place, in order to force the “collectivization” of privately-held farms, to walter cronkite outright lying about American military effectiveness during the 1968 Vietnam “Tet offensive” (in which much enemy life was lost) journalism has always been a “nasty craft”. In cronkite’s case, the North Vietnamese were ready to settle (and capitulate) until cronkite’s lies about the supposed American “defeat” were publicized. Cronkite’s lies gave the North Vietnamese new resolve, as they realized that they had the American “news media” on their side (as they later admitted). There has always been a certain sympathy for communism and totalitarianism in the so-called “mainstream media”. All one has to do is to look at the journalists fawning over Cuba’s Fidel Castro and how wonderful life is in that communist “paradise”.
Look at NBC’s rigging of GMC truck gas tanks to explode and the “doctoring” of George Zimmerman’s 911 dispatcher conversation to make him appear “racist”. Showing “young trayvon’s” picture as a 12-year-old rather than his current facebook “thug” picture was journalistic malpractice of the highest order.
Journalists HATE the internet because it exposes their “profession” for what it really is…with the internet, anyone can be a true journalist. This is why this same “mainstream media” is calling for the “licensing” of journalists–something that would have been unheard of (and treasonous) in previous decades…
Professional journalism is its own worst enemy…
Looks like we need to build a real fact checking web site that fact checks the fact checkers facts.
How much wood could a wood chuck chuck….
BTW – this piece needs to be on ZH etc…
Well…start page has limited data available for review…
the example of Sheriff Joe data given from 2012 is apt.
Facebook? Don’t use it, don’t know. What is clear is the
desire of the owners of various sites to thwart searches
and obfuscate truth. The “fake news” meme is a false
premise. Unless, one pins it on the MSM, propaganda central.
Facebook’s reporting system is FUBAR already. Someone I know got a 30 day suspension for posting a picture of a mother and child in matching fur coats because the vegan zealots reported it. That’s all it takes is enough flags to get something banned, doesn’t matter WHAT it is. NO ONE at Failbook actually LOOKS at any of this. I call it robotic reporting, the equivalent of voice mail jail.
Now I’m intrigued. Can we ban fat chicks?
We live in a white-majority country that twice elected a black president. This is the same white majority that enacted affirmative-action programs wherein African-Americans are given preference over their own sons and daughters. Yet complaints about racism are now more frequent and intense than they were fifty or sixty years ago.
The term “racist” has become so degraded that it is now commonly invoked as a criticism of anything someone does not like.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/hate_speech_hysteria_at_the_university_of_oklahoma.html#ixzz4TD3fqDwQ
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
All this from a website the started out as a forum for meeting and passing personal news to “friends”……I don’t think so…..
…with seed money from the CIA.
Smopes is comprised largely of communist propagandists:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/16/snopes-facebooks-new-fact-checker-employs-leftists-almost-exclusively/
I wonder how long it will take for this “fact checking” organization to come out and openly refer to itself as ‘The Ministry of Truth?’
Not ‘communist’, it’s neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism and neoconservatism are both essentially Trotskyism in all but name.
No more Google if possible – I use DuckDuckGo.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=truth&t=ffsb&iax=1&ia=meanings
It has far less spam, lies and fake websites, an additional bonus to keeping ca$h away from Google.
I’ve never even heard of DuckDuckGo …..and I’m a fairly intelligent chick.
The CIA has a heavily funded program to control high tech companies. When I worked for Oracle I found out about a division on the East Coast that worked with the CIA. In fact, Oracle was tied from its beginning to the CIA. Oracle started by implementing the SQL standard on DEC VAX computers for the CIA. Larry Ellison does what the CIA tells him to do and is very rich for it.
From my long experience in the IT industry I can tell you that ALL major US social media, anti-virus, and database software has a CIA backdoor.
The CIA has a venture capital operation that approaches up and coming high tech companies and makes them an offer they can’t refuse.
In-Q-Tel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel
Worth looking at the long list of companies near the bottom of the article.
What we really need is a master list of companies to boycott. When I realized what Fuckerburg was really doing with Fakebook, I deleted my account, a year or two ago. Installed a Fakebook blocker on chrome, but since google is censoring, am going to install Opera or Firefox.
I use duckduckgo for all my searches, and installed ghostery(blocks tracking),
http everywhere(security), adblock (blocks ads), and flashblock browser extensions.
The only thing these evil corporate bastards understand is hitting them ALL on their bottom line. If enough people get on this boycott bandwagon (like an organized movement), then the evil companies trying to propagandize, censor, brainwash, and control information will go bankrupt
or change their tune.
Use TOR if you want more security.
https://www.torproject.org/
Who? Men like James Quinn.
Empire of Fear Porn 🙄
https://dublinsmick.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/empire-of-fear-porn/