|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 10 2016 01:06 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 01:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 10 2016 00:55 Logo wrote:On December 10 2016 00:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I mean, "fake news" is a real and legitimate problem. There is a financial incentive for teenagers in Macedonia to concoct articles from whole cloth and there is zero mechanism for dealing with that in the modern world.
Before the internet, people doing that didn't make any money (there was no platform to readily share concocted information, especially profitable). The closest you got was National Enquirer, but just looking at the thing you can tell it's not a newspaper.
Now? It can look identical to a NYT page.
It doesn't help that "critical thinking" has somehow been demonized as something that shouldn't be taught to children.
Argue that "they don't matter" all you want, they make enough to be profitable and will only get worse because "not being mainstream" is now a plus to many. Even worse the fight against 'fake news' can be even more damaging than letting fake news run rampant by allowing people to censor news by calling it fake news or give undue credit to experts in some situations which they already may have (look at the unsubstantiated claims around Russia/Wikileaks & the election). Are you serious? The problem is that people say that Wikileakes is being fed information by Russia (which many experts believe), not that people genuinely believe that a former candidate rapes and kills babies in a pizzeria? I mean, I don't know, I find the later a bit more problematic. The problem is you can't just 'go hard' against fake news because it causes some serious problems. And things like this... https://twitter.com/MalcolmNance/status/784539641529720832?ref_src=twsrc^tfwwere totally unsubstantiated and offered without proof. Also yes experts claim a link, but have they shown any actual data or information to back up that claim? It's important to trust experts, but only when they actually give you a chance to verify their claims.
I don't even know what to say..
The fake news is a phenomenon of industrial scale. People are being fed, via manipulated social media, stuff that are made up and they believe, day after day after day. Stuff outright crazy.
And you say the bad thing is that experts make a claim that you think is not supported by facts and that's a more serious issue. I mean, wow.
Fake news is not bad quality journalism, or simple lies, or bad faith. Fake news is a novelty in which whole population have as a source of information stuff that are made up. Completely made up. Crazy shit conspiracy theories, fake news about stuff that didn't happen. Pure, simple bullshit, as a worldview.
Podesta emails WERE manipulated, and you can find occurrences of that multiple times, in this very thread.
|
On December 10 2016 01:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 01:06 Logo wrote:On December 10 2016 01:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 10 2016 00:55 Logo wrote:On December 10 2016 00:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I mean, "fake news" is a real and legitimate problem. There is a financial incentive for teenagers in Macedonia to concoct articles from whole cloth and there is zero mechanism for dealing with that in the modern world.
Before the internet, people doing that didn't make any money (there was no platform to readily share concocted information, especially profitable). The closest you got was National Enquirer, but just looking at the thing you can tell it's not a newspaper.
Now? It can look identical to a NYT page.
It doesn't help that "critical thinking" has somehow been demonized as something that shouldn't be taught to children.
Argue that "they don't matter" all you want, they make enough to be profitable and will only get worse because "not being mainstream" is now a plus to many. Even worse the fight against 'fake news' can be even more damaging than letting fake news run rampant by allowing people to censor news by calling it fake news or give undue credit to experts in some situations which they already may have (look at the unsubstantiated claims around Russia/Wikileaks & the election). Are you serious? The problem is that people say that Wikileakes is being fed information by Russia (which many experts believe), not that people genuinely believe that a former candidate rapes and kills babies in a pizzeria? I mean, I don't know, I find the later a bit more problematic. The problem is you can't just 'go hard' against fake news because it causes some serious problems. And things like this... https://twitter.com/MalcolmNance/status/784539641529720832?ref_src=twsrc^tfwwere totally unsubstantiated and offered without proof. Also yes experts claim a link, but have they shown any actual data or information to back up that claim? It's important to trust experts, but only when they actually give you a chance to verify their claims. I don't even know what to say.. The fake news is a phenomenon of industrial scale. People are being fed, via manipulated social media, stuff that are made up and they believe, day after day after day. Stuff outright crazy. And you say the bad thing is that experts make a claim that you think is not supported by facts and that's a more serious issue. I mean, wow.
Do you not understand holding multiple concerns in your head at once?
Fake News is a big insidious problem because there's no obvious fix, it causes a lot of damage, AND potential fixes can be very risky where potential solutions can be manipulated against spreading real news or give false confidence to spreading fake news from legitimate sources.
It's easy to point at things that are fake news, it's much harder to point at solutions that could potentially fight or control fake news explicitly.
|
On December 10 2016 01:14 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 01:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 10 2016 01:06 Logo wrote:On December 10 2016 01:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 10 2016 00:55 Logo wrote:On December 10 2016 00:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I mean, "fake news" is a real and legitimate problem. There is a financial incentive for teenagers in Macedonia to concoct articles from whole cloth and there is zero mechanism for dealing with that in the modern world.
Before the internet, people doing that didn't make any money (there was no platform to readily share concocted information, especially profitable). The closest you got was National Enquirer, but just looking at the thing you can tell it's not a newspaper.
Now? It can look identical to a NYT page.
It doesn't help that "critical thinking" has somehow been demonized as something that shouldn't be taught to children.
Argue that "they don't matter" all you want, they make enough to be profitable and will only get worse because "not being mainstream" is now a plus to many. Even worse the fight against 'fake news' can be even more damaging than letting fake news run rampant by allowing people to censor news by calling it fake news or give undue credit to experts in some situations which they already may have (look at the unsubstantiated claims around Russia/Wikileaks & the election). Are you serious? The problem is that people say that Wikileakes is being fed information by Russia (which many experts believe), not that people genuinely believe that a former candidate rapes and kills babies in a pizzeria? I mean, I don't know, I find the later a bit more problematic. The problem is you can't just 'go hard' against fake news because it causes some serious problems. And things like this... https://twitter.com/MalcolmNance/status/784539641529720832?ref_src=twsrc^tfwwere totally unsubstantiated and offered without proof. Also yes experts claim a link, but have they shown any actual data or information to back up that claim? It's important to trust experts, but only when they actually give you a chance to verify their claims. I don't even know what to say.. The fake news is a phenomenon of industrial scale. People are being fed, via manipulated social media, stuff that are made up and they believe, day after day after day. Stuff outright crazy. And you say the bad thing is that experts make a claim that you think is not supported by facts and that's a more serious issue. I mean, wow. Do you not understand holding multiple concerns in your head at once? Fake News is a big insidious problem because there's no obvious fix, it causes a lot of damage, AND potential fixes can be very risky where potential solutions can be manipulated against spreading real news or give false confidence to spreading fake news from legitimate sources.
I absolutely never said the opposite.
My problem is people saying "fake news" with "" as if it was a fabricated problem, or you saying that the real issue is that the experts are making claim that you judge unsupported. As if you could compare the two. Personally, I have read everywhere that "experts thought and are fairly sure the Russians were behind the Podesta and DNC emails but there were no actual proof". That's what you would read in the NYT, in the Guardian, in the FT and in most quality media.
|
On December 10 2016 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 01:14 Logo wrote:On December 10 2016 01:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 10 2016 01:06 Logo wrote:On December 10 2016 01:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 10 2016 00:55 Logo wrote:On December 10 2016 00:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I mean, "fake news" is a real and legitimate problem. There is a financial incentive for teenagers in Macedonia to concoct articles from whole cloth and there is zero mechanism for dealing with that in the modern world.
Before the internet, people doing that didn't make any money (there was no platform to readily share concocted information, especially profitable). The closest you got was National Enquirer, but just looking at the thing you can tell it's not a newspaper.
Now? It can look identical to a NYT page.
It doesn't help that "critical thinking" has somehow been demonized as something that shouldn't be taught to children.
Argue that "they don't matter" all you want, they make enough to be profitable and will only get worse because "not being mainstream" is now a plus to many. Even worse the fight against 'fake news' can be even more damaging than letting fake news run rampant by allowing people to censor news by calling it fake news or give undue credit to experts in some situations which they already may have (look at the unsubstantiated claims around Russia/Wikileaks & the election). Are you serious? The problem is that people say that Wikileakes is being fed information by Russia (which many experts believe), not that people genuinely believe that a former candidate rapes and kills babies in a pizzeria? I mean, I don't know, I find the later a bit more problematic. The problem is you can't just 'go hard' against fake news because it causes some serious problems. And things like this... https://twitter.com/MalcolmNance/status/784539641529720832?ref_src=twsrc^tfwwere totally unsubstantiated and offered without proof. Also yes experts claim a link, but have they shown any actual data or information to back up that claim? It's important to trust experts, but only when they actually give you a chance to verify their claims. I don't even know what to say.. The fake news is a phenomenon of industrial scale. People are being fed, via manipulated social media, stuff that are made up and they believe, day after day after day. Stuff outright crazy. And you say the bad thing is that experts make a claim that you think is not supported by facts and that's a more serious issue. I mean, wow. Do you not understand holding multiple concerns in your head at once? Fake News is a big insidious problem because there's no obvious fix, it causes a lot of damage, AND potential fixes can be very risky where potential solutions can be manipulated against spreading real news or give false confidence to spreading fake news from legitimate sources. I absolutely never said the opposite. My problem is people saying "fake news" with "" as if it was a fabricated problem, or you saying that the real issue is that the experts are making claim that you judge unsupported. As if you could compare the two. Personally, I have read everywhere that "experts thought and are fairly sure the Russians were behind the Podesta and DNC emails but there were no actual proof". That's what you would read in the NYT, in the Guardian, in the FT and in most quality media.
Why didn't you respond angrily to TenthDoctor for using "Fake News"? I simply copied his style as the norm for the writing, it seems fine for a term that has a potentially ambiguous definition (the big offenders are obvious, but the edges are tough).
I never claimed anything like "the real issue". I simply said it was hard to do something about fake news because there's a large potential for harm.
|
What is being said about "Russian propaganda" and "fake news"? It's being used as a scapegoat to hide genuine resentment, far more than it is to express disapproval about the specific actions themselves.
As it stands, the relations of Russia with the Atlanticist parties of the West are not so great, in that many of them seek to brand Russia as the next Nazi Germany. And that relation is basically set to last in perpetuity if it continues to exist. There do, however, exist people who are more sympathetic towards Russia: the populists, who have fascist undertones (they're not real fascists, that's just an exaggeration made by people who haven't really seen fascist parties, but by Western standards they can be referred to as such), who happen to be rising in a wave of unprecedented popularity as tensions between the liberal order and a more nation-oriented come to a boil. And who exactly do you expect them to support there? The people more sympathetic to Russia, obviously.
Are foreign propaganda channels... spreading foreign propaganda? No shit. Are there cyber efforts by foreign governments to make "fake news" and "trolls" and the like? Yes, but it's really impressive when people delude themselves into thinking that only one side does it. Are there a lot of people who buy into lies and believe what they want to believe even when reality contradicts them? Certainly, though again, it would be worth acknowledging that those exist on both sides. Does the American right lie significantly more than the American left? Yes, yes they do.
But to see only that side of it is to miss a much bigger point: people care about that shit (fake news, Russian hacks, Wikileaks) but the people who feel wronged just happen to care more about the issues that those bring to light. Did Trump happen to cut deeply at a lot of neglected issues that people really, deeply cared about? Damn right he did; few expected him to win, but he absolutely did do that whether or not he would have won. Does "fake news" and foreign propaganda of the populist variety gain popularity in the face of excessive agenda-pushing on the part of the "mainstream media" and "experts" who clearly do not think objectively, but think in terms of their own narrative? Yes. Did the contents of the Wikileaks DNC release confirm a lot of what people knew (without proof) to be true about collusion against Bernie Sanders in the party apparatus? Yes, they did.
Did too many people, including the "establishment folk" and the shills on their behalf, try to blow off the genuine concerns of Trump, agenda-pushing establishment folk, DNC collusion, and such, by blaming Russia, fake news, racists, sexists, James Comey, Darth Vader, and generally anyone but the people who allowed such a situation to arise? Undeniably. When Hillary Clinton talked about Russia in the debates it sounded so very much like a deflection meant to draw attention away from what bothered people about the emails themselves. When Facebook blamed "fake news" for misleading people I couldn't help but feel that they were implicitly saying that they just weren't good enough shills for Hillary Clinton and they needed to fix that. When WaPo says that all the people that disagree with them are just paid Russian fake news agents based on a bullshit source, you start to see where the real problem is here. Or maybe not, which is an even bigger problem.
|
On December 10 2016 00:55 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 00:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I mean, "fake news" is a real and legitimate problem. There is a financial incentive for teenagers in Macedonia to concoct articles from whole cloth and there is zero mechanism for dealing with that in the modern world.
Before the internet, people doing that didn't make any money (there was no platform to readily share concocted information, especially profitable). The closest you got was National Enquirer, but just looking at the thing you can tell it's not a newspaper.
Now? It can look identical to a NYT page.
It doesn't help that "critical thinking" has somehow been demonized as something that shouldn't be taught to children.
Argue that "they don't matter" all you want, they make enough to be profitable and will only get worse because "not being mainstream" is now a plus to many. Even worse the fight against 'fake news' can be even more damaging than letting fake news run rampant by allowing people to censor news by calling it fake news or give undue credit to experts in some situations which they already may have (look at the unsubstantiated claims around Russia/Wikileaks & the election). It's a tough problem.
You've struck at the heart of the issue. The action plan of combating fake news reeks of censorship. The issue has been politicized (intentionally?) to mean right wing Trump-voters too dumb to examine the outlet. Talk about how to push possible allies into a defensive stance. Maybe also some recognition for the frequency of how "x fake news tv anchorman really killed it on this issue." Or maybe news outlets making hay of the pizzeria that hypothetically would not cater a gay wedding. Basically, the movement is not serious.
|
Just educate the populace that a lot of the things on the internet including legitimate news sites can put out "fake news". Let them do with that knowledge what they will. That's about it, everything else would be some form of censorship.
|
And let's not pretend that mainstream media hasn't had its dalliances with "fake news." From Dan Rather making shit up about Bush, to Bryan Williams making shit up about his experiences with war in Iraq, to the Washington Post making shit up about how all of alternative media coverage is a tool of the Russians, the hypocrisy of these outlets now wringing their hands about fake news is rich, indeed.
|
The thing is, real journalists that get caught telling total bull face, atleast some kind, of trouble when they get caught.
But now there are entire "newsplattforms" that exist for creating/spreading fake news.
Something needs to be done about this, but its hard to find a solution because the lines aren't clear.
|
On December 10 2016 01:49 xDaunt wrote:
And let's not pretend that mainstream media hasn't had its dalliances with "fake news." From Dan Rather making shit up about Bush, to Bryan Williams making shit up about his experiences with war in Iraq, to the Washington Post making shit up about how all of alternative media coverage is a tool of the Russians, the hypocrisy of these outlets now wringing their hands about fake news is rich, indeed.
In particular, it's telling how the entire "fake news" issue only came up the day after the election result was known. If it were a real, non-partisan problem that was so widespread that it was well known, it wouldn't look suspiciously like a scapegoat for an unexpected and brutal loss.
On December 10 2016 01:59 Velr wrote:
The thing is, real journalists that get caught telling total bull face, atleast some kind, of trouble when they get caught.
Do they? I have seen no such thing. As long as it's the right kind of bullshit they get lauded as "award winning journalists" instead.
|
On December 10 2016 01:59 Velr wrote:
The thing is, real journalists that get caught telling total bull face, atleast some kind, of trouble when they get caught.
But now there are entire "newsplattforms" that exist for creating/spreading fake news.
Something needs to be done about this, but its hard to find a solution because the lines aren't clear.
Wait, wasn't this the revelation from Trump's victory? Entire news platforms exist for creating/spreading fake news and controversies, primarily based in New York and Washington DC? They did indeed get into some kind of trouble when they were caught.
LegalLord beat me to it. The timing and content makes the story. "Fake news" is fake news intended to draw attention away from the damaging revelations of the election. The best way for established outlets to strike back is to hire a more ideologically diverse reporting and journalism team and replace or retrain their editors to publish less slanted copy. They could take the lead in this if they find the courage to do it.
|
On December 10 2016 02:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 01:49 xDaunt wrote:
And let's not pretend that mainstream media hasn't had its dalliances with "fake news." From Dan Rather making shit up about Bush, to Bryan Williams making shit up about his experiences with war in Iraq, to the Washington Post making shit up about how all of alternative media coverage is a tool of the Russians, the hypocrisy of these outlets now wringing their hands about fake news is rich, indeed. In particular, it's telling how the entire "fake news" issue only came up the day after the election result was known. If it were a real, non-partisan problem that was so widespread that it was well known, it wouldn't look suspiciously like a scapegoat for an unexpected and brutal loss..
Why can't reality be partisan? I'd wager anything that most fake news stories that came up this election were anti Hillary or pro Trump.
|
On December 10 2016 02:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 01:59 Velr wrote:
The thing is, real journalists that get caught telling total bull face, atleast some kind, of trouble when they get caught.
But now there are entire "newsplattforms" that exist for creating/spreading fake news.
Something needs to be done about this, but its hard to find a solution because the lines aren't clear. Wait, wasn't this the revelation from Trump's victory? Entire news platforms exist for creating/spreading fake news and controversies, primarily based in New York and Washington DC? They did indeed get into some kind of trouble when they were caught. LegalLord beat me to it. The timing and content makes the story. "Fake news" is fake news intended to draw attention away from the damaging revelations of the election. The best way for established outlets to strike back is to hire a more ideologically diverse reporting and journalism team and replace or retrain their editors to publish less slanted copy. They could take the lead in this if they find the courage to do it.
So the right demands diversity for diversity's sake now? I thought journalists were supposed to report truth, what you're demanding is affirmative action for people who believe crazy things. This just sounds like blackmailing. "Please report what we like to hear or we'll spam your Facebook feed with it anyway".
|
On December 10 2016 02:22 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 02:00 LegalLord wrote:On December 10 2016 01:49 xDaunt wrote:
And let's not pretend that mainstream media hasn't had its dalliances with "fake news." From Dan Rather making shit up about Bush, to Bryan Williams making shit up about his experiences with war in Iraq, to the Washington Post making shit up about how all of alternative media coverage is a tool of the Russians, the hypocrisy of these outlets now wringing their hands about fake news is rich, indeed. In particular, it's telling how the entire "fake news" issue only came up the day after the election result was known. If it were a real, non-partisan problem that was so widespread that it was well known, it wouldn't look suspiciously like a scapegoat for an unexpected and brutal loss.. Why can't reality be partisan? I'd wager anything that most fake news stories that came up this election were anti Hillary or pro Trump.
If by "most" you mean "more than half" then maybe you'd be right. If you mean "the vast majority" you would be completely wrong.
Why can't it be non-partisan? Look at the context. Did Facebook just happen to notice on November 9 that many stories were made up? Did the left-leaning media just happen to take a principled stand against "fake news" simply as a result of a commitment to good journalism in a way that looks suspiciously like rationalizing Clinton's loss by blaming anyone but the candidate herself? Spider senses suggest that that is not the case.
|
Okay, so "fake news" totally doesn't exist, or, well, if it does, is just as bad as the vetted mainstream media. Got it.
And Russia totally doesn't propagate mass amounts of propaganda. The Kremlin would never pay thousands of people to spread lies over the internet. What a silly conspiracy, akin to calling them Nazi Germany.
Nothing revealing in certain people's desire to obfuscate, dismiss, or belittle these issues. Nothing at all. This thread has really become great again.
On December 10 2016 02:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 02:22 On_Slaught wrote:On December 10 2016 02:00 LegalLord wrote:On December 10 2016 01:49 xDaunt wrote:
And let's not pretend that mainstream media hasn't had its dalliances with "fake news." From Dan Rather making shit up about Bush, to Bryan Williams making shit up about his experiences with war in Iraq, to the Washington Post making shit up about how all of alternative media coverage is a tool of the Russians, the hypocrisy of these outlets now wringing their hands about fake news is rich, indeed. In particular, it's telling how the entire "fake news" issue only came up the day after the election result was known. If it were a real, non-partisan problem that was so widespread that it was well known, it wouldn't look suspiciously like a scapegoat for an unexpected and brutal loss.. Why can't reality be partisan? I'd wager anything that most fake news stories that came up this election were anti Hillary or pro Trump. If by "most" you mean "more than half" then maybe you'd be right. If you mean "the vast majority" you would be completely wrong.
No, he wouldn't be completely wrong. He would be completely right. Fake news was essentially the foundation of Trump's campaign. Just say "wikileaks" and then make-up any story about Hillary you wanted. This is what thousands of websites did. This is what millions of Trump voters did. This is what paid Russian trolls did.
And I find all that a lot more disturbing than Bryan Williams embellishing his personal heroism.
|
On December 10 2016 02:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 01:59 Velr wrote:
The thing is, real journalists that get caught telling total bull face, atleast some kind, of trouble when they get caught.
But now there are entire "newsplattforms" that exist for creating/spreading fake news.
Something needs to be done about this, but its hard to find a solution because the lines aren't clear. Wait, wasn't this the revelation from Trump's victory? Entire news platforms exist for creating/spreading fake news and controversies, primarily based in New York and Washington DC? They did indeed get into some kind of trouble when they were caught. LegalLord beat me to it. The timing and content makes the story. "Fake news" is fake news intended to draw attention away from the damaging revelations of the election. The best way for established outlets to strike back is to hire a more ideologically diverse reporting and journalism team and replace or retrain their editors to publish less slanted copy. They could take the lead in this if they find the courage to do it.
How will this help neuter totally fabricated clickbait at all?
It's impossible to make your copy unslanted enough to appeal to the people that want fabricated clickbait because the fabrication and resulting slant of that news is precisely what makes it readily shareable and appealing.
NYT hiring more conservative op-eds is going to do what exactly to stop "JUST IN: Obama Illegally Transferred DOJ Money To Clinton Campaign!" and "BREAKING: Obama Confirms Refusal To Leave White House, He Will Stay In Power!" from getting shared by millions? Please explain. Suddenly these people will have an epiphany and believe the "MSM" isn't full of evil liberal lies?
Totally fabricated news is simply the natural conclusion of a media market that has realized appealing to everyone is a bad way to make money, because other media that appeal to specific markets will just say you're biased anyway.
|
On December 10 2016 02:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 01:49 xDaunt wrote:
And let's not pretend that mainstream media hasn't had its dalliances with "fake news." From Dan Rather making shit up about Bush, to Bryan Williams making shit up about his experiences with war in Iraq, to the Washington Post making shit up about how all of alternative media coverage is a tool of the Russians, the hypocrisy of these outlets now wringing their hands about fake news is rich, indeed. In particular, it's telling how the entire "fake news" issue only came up the day after the election result was known. If it were a real, non-partisan problem that was so widespread that it was well known, it wouldn't look suspiciously like a scapegoat for an unexpected and brutal loss. Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 01:59 Velr wrote:
The thing is, real journalists that get caught telling total bull face, atleast some kind, of trouble when they get caught. Do they? I have seen no such thing. As long as it's the right kind of bullshit they get lauded as "award winning journalists" instead.
Crass cases do, but well, people like bullshit so they can come back. This is also an issue.
|
In false news news, Kurt Eichenwald mistakenly claimed that Trump supporters booed John Glenn.
(he has since deleted the original tweet, which got retweeted thousands of times)
|
Frankly I'm surprised people still care enough about the guy to care what he says on this issue, that issue, these issues, those issues, or any issue in general. He's shown well enough that he is quite delusional and lacks credibility.
|
I don't think stories of fake news only popped up after the election, you should do some digging before making such a bold claim.
People boosting the signal of the issue because of the loss and people using it as a scapegoat are totally accurate depictions, but you can't use that to divert criticism of the underlying issue. The same way you can't use fake news to deflect criticisms of Hillary's campaign.
http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/can-facebook-solve-its-macedonian-fake-news-problem.html this took me 30seconds to find and is dated Nov 4th.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
