[HOWTO] Stopping Fake News - Comments Page 4

I second that Kevin

It claims to work both on chrome and opera
and yet on win 7 with opera (and no chrome broswer) the link take me only to a chrome installation page not to the BS-Detector install page

Ah come on, we've always been subject to fake news long before the digital age. It was on every magazine rack and on TV. Now it's being talked about because the lying press failed to usher in a miserable malicious mendacious mook who made millions faking her way through life. What is being called fake news appeals to the educated stupid instead of yellow journalism especially because of the jaundiced reporting about a sociopath.

Bob,
It seems to me that an inordinate amount of attention has been paid to this unfortunate pizza-gate incident. It has been used to paint the entire independent media with a broad brush.

However, most of the genuine fake news out there is found on the "respectable" mainstream networks and papers - MSNBC, NBC, ABC, FOX, Washington Post, New York Times, etc.

The United States government has been in the business of spreading fake news propaganda in foreign nations since at least the end of world war II. A congressional committee ( the church committee ) was convened in 1975 to address the issue of illegal CIA interference with domestic media. During the Gulf Wars I and II fake news items were planted, for example, in the Australian or English media and then picked up by domestic sources.

In 2013 the Obama administration made internal propaganda legal. This is all easily verified.

The damage done by fake news in the mainstream media outweighs any harm the independent ( and generally more truthful ) could do by several orders of magnitude. Yet where is the focus on these especially egregious instances, some of which have cost HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS, EVEN MILLIONS OF LIVES:

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/12/10/the-7-worst-examples-of-fake-news-from-the-mainstream-media-n2257896

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-18/5-times-when-mainstream-media-created-fake-news-and-people-died-result

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/22/12-fake-news-stories-from-the-mainstream-media/

http://www.infowars.com/the-ultimate-fake-news-list/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-is-behind-fake-news-mainstream-media-use-fake-videos-and-images/5557580

The list goes on. Fake news - called propaganda by those who know its nothing new, is a red herring.

The answer to propaganda is not restriction of speech as certain parties are proposing ( notably now, when it is convenient for them ). The answer is MORE freedom of speech.

I'm sorry - I just have to interject this here. With respect to Snopes: Beware all self-proclaimed ministries of truth. Just do an experiment. Visit Snopes and snoop around looking for subjective judgments, errors in logic, meaningless statements.... you'll find plenty.

The best bullsh*t detector is a well read brain exposed to constant discussion. I'm very surprised in you Bob. It's disappointing to see you push this BS BS detector browser plugin because you typically exercise a fine mind in your reviews. My apologies for the double comment.

Wow, nice to find this sort of web-smalltown with seemingly literate people where the discourse has not yet been poisoned.

That said, I just want to pose a few questions to various ideas put forth both by Bob and other responders. This coming from a person, I hope you will recognize, to be just as plain-thinking, skeptical, logical, and un-emotional as Bob and perhaps yourself.

1. Bravo Mrs. Arnold! For teaching 70's kids to detect bias. Not everyone was as lucky, I had to live through those years fat dumb happy . . . and remember we only had 3 channels and one newspaper in most places. Compare to the attention assault today. I have an 18- and 15-year old. So Stanford study says either they or their peers lack discernment? To an extent I agree, and that extent corresponds exactly with how much we legitimize the construct of "Mainstream" media. Question: Is it possible that their seeming lack of discernment is because they discern better than we? How ridiculous does our "safe to trust" media appear to them? Do we take things for granted that they don't? The best liars tell the truth most of the time. The worst ones are easy to spot.

2. Regardless of your political polarity (I can't swing enthusiastically either way), definitely do take the risk to actually visit some of these scary "fake" news sites, regardless of headline, those which link to the actual Wikileaks emails, especially the Podesta ones. Has anyone read these? Forget the lurid stuff, though that is damning enough. Is anyone suspicious that the levels of corruption, pay for play, and other things you can read for yourself right in wikileaks; that these are un-commented on by our safe media, while anything silly or misconstrued is loudly reported? Compare this to the treatment given the also unlawfully acquired "Pentagon Papers," if anyone remembers that.

3. What about, for example, the background of Huma Abedin? The beautiful girl who when she was about the age of my son (18), seemingly out of a fairy-tale she was lofted from her Saudi Arabian life to the side of First Lady Clinton, where she remained. Even for the privileged aristocracy this seems exceptional. I'm sure there is some legit-from-their-viewpoint explanation and some safe news articles here and there to legitimize it. But to the average person this seems to beg explanation and exposition, i.e. plain language: "please tell me loudly there is really nothing wrong with this person-who-would-run-the-White House." But reasonable people will agree that this story wasn't told many times or very loudly, except by the "fake" news rogues. Try this rogue "Abby Martin on Huma Abedin" if you dare.

4. Bob: With respect, I still must ask, why would I want myself or ANYONE to edit their news with an editorial board consisting of an anonymous browser plugin, as reasonable as that seems on the face of it. I have probably learned from you some of the behind the scenes of plugins, extensions, etc. . . Shirley you are joking?

5. Not a question but an appeal to common sense: There is very little good reason for the widespread trust of snopes.com. Unfortunately you have to waste many hours over the years (since the late '90s) reading this trusted "authority" . . . before the gestalt of it hits you.

Respect, Joe Chip

"Domain names that end in “.com.co” are usually masquerading as legitimate sources. The same goes for “.com.cc” or any other “.com” name that has additional letters at its end."

It is common for foreign sites to place the 2-digit national identifier at the end of its name. For example: ABC.COM.AU will take you to ABC.NET.AU which is the site of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation