Skip to main content

Fake News Clamps Down On Fake News



After losing its grip on its ability to manipulate the public on BrExit and the US elections, the largest fake news industry in the world, the mainstream media, is calling for a clampdown on rival fake news. The irony is in your face, just like the proverbial egg is on the face of CNN, Bloomberg, Sky, Al Jazeera, The BBC and all the other usual suspects. The message is clear: Only our fake news is acceptable.

What is “fake news”?
This is the big question, because there is plenty of fake news out there, most of which is “Click-bait” designed to lure us into clicking onto platforms who want to maximize ad exposure and advertising revenues, but this is not actually a new problem and we can usually work out which are spam sites by looking at the other content on the sites. If the stories are packed with tales of alien abductions and zombies we can work it out fairly easily and we quickly learn to avoid these sites. We are not complete idiots (hopefully).

What else can be considered fake news?
This is more worrying because once major MSM sites like Google and Facebook start considering alternative news sites (see the right hand column of this blog for example) that carry a narrative different (or more truthful) than their own spin and propaganda, even if it is rival propaganda, we run into dangers of censorship. Censorship can take our ability to make up our own minds away from us and channel only one perspective into the public domain. This amounts to nothing less than mind-policing and places the Orwellian “Thought-Police” scenario squarely on the horizon. It's insulting and suspect behavior and ridiculous to assert that we are voting incorrectly because the MSM are losing the information wars. The real reason they are losing is precisely because people ARE making up their own minds and this is dangerous to the establishment.


I find it difficult to accept that this is not an attempt to squash the alternative news movement, which depends on the free availability of information and gives discretion to the end users to act like free thinking adults and make up their own minds. Over time we learn which sources are reputable and which are not, and I am absolutely sure that I do not want institutions that I already do not trust deciding what I should see and what I should not see. As it stands I already find the algorithms annoying and as far as I'm concerned the less filtering, profiling and censorship, the better we are for it.


Popular posts from this blog

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

First and foremost,  what is this so called 'consensus' anyway.  You will be horrified to find out,  it's not specifically that global warming is man made.  It's simply that humans contribute to climate change in an unknowable way and to…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

http://dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2018/04/sheep-science.html?m=1

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.


Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…

You Don't Know What Capitalism Is So Stop Using The Word!

I am writing this for one purpose, to be able to post it every time the issue comes up in conversation to prevent myself from dying of boredom on a few key issues with label intellectuals, you know, the sort who drop labels for the singular purpose of demonstrating their talent at dodging real issues by posing as someone who knows the definition of a word.

When it comes right down to it, I personally think most economic and, for that matter, socio-economic systems across the entire capitalism/ socialism spectrum could work if corruption could just be reasonably controlled.  Many forget that Socialism still runs on the capitalism economics system and the finer points actually come down to policy and regulations. This is often missed.  That being said, I am fairly sure that many of the criticisms of communism for example are valid, and views that it does not work especially well because it tends to kill the inventiveness and passion of the human spirit do stand, but not for the reasons…