When Fake News is Real News and Real News is Fake News

I

ianvr

Jedi
This story is more a reality view than something reported as outrageous but the writer make some interesting comments and findings:

http://www.webpronews.com/fake-news-real-news-real-news-fake-news-2016-12/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+insiderreports+%28+WebProNews%3A+Insider+Reports%29

All of this talk about fake news is starting to take root into the mainstream news bubble as if it were true, which it isn't in any discernible or meaningful way. We are already seeing social media and left leaning groups circling the wagons to make the fake news about fake news turn into censorship of real news that they politically disagree with.

After all, it's tempting for the left to want to shut up the right because they correctly see in Trump's victory that the right can now effectively bypass the left's long-term news filter and take their political arguments directly to their base and to voters in general.

Facebook, Google, Reddit, Twitter and the mainstream media had better be very correct when censoring so-called "fake news" or they will risk a huge backlash from the conservative majority in this country. That means that censoring obvious fake news that can be proven might be okay with most people (not me), but censoring news about pay to play deals in the Clinton Foundation or disagreement on the existence and causes of global warming or quietly deleting social posts that discuss things the liberal media doesn't think are true is simply not acceptable.

The big internet media companies and the mainstream press should realize that if only one side of the political spectrum is censored then just maybe new laws are needed to stop them from doing this.

Wikileaks has proven as real news that CNN, NBC, NYT and many others were colluding with the Democrats in order to help them get elected. That was fake news that was proven to be real news. Yet, they hardly covered it, so that unless a CNN viewer saw it on social media or a conservative news outlet they would probably rightly think it was fake news.

If you only watched CNN or a few other left leaning news sources you would probably think it was real news that Breitbart News is a racist white nationalist news site. That's actually fake news, totally disproven by the lack of evidence presented by it's mainstream news libelists and even some honorable liberals.

Even Fox News now says its is the policy of their network that global warming is real and is caused by humans. There are thousands of scientists who disagree with this mainstream consensus, none of Al Gore's scientific predictions have came true and it's a fact that data has been adjusted on multiple occasions to fit the narrative of warming and the majority of American's think it is a non-issue.

Will opposing man caused global warming be considered fake news by the social media giants and the mainstream news organizations? If you look at the lefts censorship patterns it certainly will.

For instance, the LA Times banned disagreement with this "settled science". If media leaves no room for disagreement on a scientific argument is it no longer science and instead simply faith? If the warmests are eventually shown to be wrong does their real news then become fake news?

In other words, there is often less than 100% chance that your real news might be my fake news and visa-versa. All I'm saying is be careful big social and big media, because in general... censorship is usually not a good idea.

Donald Trump suggested the idea that millions voted illegally for Clinton and he was chided by the media as a pusher of fake news. How do they know that? Well, they just do... no evidence is needed to say with 100% certainty that millions didn't vote illegally. Maybe they are right, but what if they aren't?

The media acts as if this is totally outlandish and so-called fake news while ignoring the evidence that says it could be true. Project Veritas released several hidden 60 Minutes style undercover videos that show that Democrat operatives are encouraging and aiding in illegal voting.

The State of California is run by liberal Democrats who have given every illegal resident a drivers license and allows registration at their DMV and does not allow asking anybody who votes for ID or about their legal status. Why wouldn't conservatives like Trump believe that there are millions of illegal voters in California who likely voted for Clinton?

These reasons are why 60% of Republicands believe that there are substantial numbers of illegal immigrants voting and therefore canceling out their legal votes.

There are in fact studies and surveys that show that illegal immigrants do vote and possibly as many as 3 million. True or not, who knows, but it certainly shouldn't be considered fake news since there is at least some evidence to support the accusation. Fake news should not be a political opinion or simply an opinion of the majority.

Unless it's calling a dog a cat, then publications should let the people debate it, share it on social and practice their First Amendment right to make their case.
 
A bit in the same lane of thought I had this delivered to my email as I subscribed to duckduckgo(DDG) newletters:

https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles?language=en

Some of you might know, by using duckduckgo as your engine you are not being followed. So they claim. It at least works eliminating the adds on your search. Only 1 or 2 publicity would show up on the top of the search and they are not targeted at you personnaly, they are paid add to duckduckgo.

Here is what the email looks like:



Recently there's been a lot of justified outrage over "fake news" and the fact that many people are living in an echo chamber online.

Companies like Google uses your profile to filter the results they show you, based on what they think you are most likely to click on. This is commonly known as the "Filter Bubble."

It's a form of corporate censorship that can be used to influence public opinion (even unintentionally), such as election outcomes and other political issues.

Want to learn more about how you are being censored? Check out the TED talk by Eli Parsier.
Video of Eli Parsier's TED talk.

We don't think someone else should decide what information you get to see!

At DuckDuckGo, we don't put you in the "Filter Bubble."

Proudly Private,

Dax's Signature

Dax the Duck,
Mascot - DuckDuckGo
Click to expand...



Here's what some site has to say about it https://techboomers.com/t/is-duckduckgo-safe:


Is DuckDuckGo safe and secure?

You bet it is! In fact, DuckDuckGo is probably safer and more secure than some of the more common search engines that people use, such as Google Search, Yahoo Search, and Bing. Read on to find out why.
How DuckDuckGo keeps you safe
Blocking "search leakage"

"Search leakage" is a phenomenon where, when you click on a result from a search engine to go to a website, it sends your Internet address, browser information, and search terms to that website. Therefore, not only does every website that you click on know that you specifically visited them, but they also know what you searched for to find them (and so does the search engine).

DuckDuckGo fixes this privacy problem in two basic ways. First of all, the website itself does not collect any personally-identifiable information about you. Second, when you click on the result of a DuckDuckGo search, DuckDuckGo redirects your action in a way that prevents your search terms from getting sent. Therefore, websites will still know that you visited them, but they won't know how you found them.
Avoiding search history pitfalls

When you use other search engines, they often collect information about how you use them. This could include your search terms, the date and time of your searches, your Internet address, your browser specifications, or even your account information (if you have an account on the service and are logged in). This can let them track and profile you, which may also lead them to "personalize" your search results to show you results based on things that you are supposedly interested in. However, these results might not be the most relevant to you in the context of a particular search.

While this may be somewhat unsettling, the larger problem is what happens if the personal information a search engine collects from you is shared with others. The search engine could deliberately release anonymized versions of it (many of which aren't actually all that anonymous) for research purposes, have it leaked or stolen by hackers, or give it to law enforcement organizations upon request.

DuckDuckGo avoids these potentially thorny privacy issues of properly securing and anonymizing data while complying with law enforcement requests by simply not collecting your personal/usage data at all. They're not legally required to collect your information, and if they don't have it, then they can't leak it, lose it, or give it to law enforcement agencies.
Does DuckDuckGo collect any information from me?

Yes, but none of it contains anything that would allow DuckDuckGo to identify and track you as a unique user (such as your Internet address or web browser specifications). Here's a list of some of the information that DuckDuckGo keeps:

Small Internet files known as "cookies" (see our What are Cookies article for more information) that keep track of any settings that you change on DuckDuckGo.

Cookies that keep track of "bangs" that you have used to search on other websites through DuckDuckGo (see our How to Search DuckDuckGo tutorial for more on "bangs" and how they work).

Search terms, for the sole purpose of offering spelling suggestions on commonly-misspelled words.

Affiliate codes that result in DuckDuckGo being paid a commission when products are sold due to someone searching for them on e-commerce websites (such as Amazon and eBay) through DuckDuckGo, or clicking an advertisement for them on DuckDuckGo. See our How Does DuckDuckGo Make Money tutorial for more information.

Any personal information that you willingly share with DuckDuckGo when providing them with feedback (which is totally optional; you can provide anonymous feedback if you'd like).

That's a brief explanation of the ways in which DuckDuckGo does and doesn't keep you safe!
Click to expand...



Now on wiki here there is some other infos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuckDuckGo:

History
2008: DuckDuckGo was founded[15] by Gabriel Weinberg,[16][17] an entrepreneur whose previous venture, The Names Database, was acquired by United Online in 2006 for $10 million.[18] Initially self-funded by Weinberg, DuckDuckGo is now[when?] advertising-supported but the user has the option to disable ads.
Click to expand...


I started to get suspicious when I saw that a big company called United Online bought the last company of the search engine for 10 millions. Meaning that the money used to build the engine comes from there: https://ebank.unitedbankofindia.com/BankAwayRetail/(S(1k3ct355bklyxb55b3ccf155))/web/L001/retail/jsp/user/RetailSignOn.aspx?RequestId=28442637

The united bank of India. I found some corruption related to them : http://www.india.com/news/agencies/telangana-official-liquidator-arrested-in-fraud-case-2255055/
It's a bank after all not really surprising.

So what do you think ? Am I thinking this to far ? For security I don't think so. There probably more to be found but can we trust this DDG or any browser ?
 
Esprit said:
So what do you think ? Am I thinking this to far ? For security I don't think so. There probably more to be found but can we trust this DDG or any browser ?
Click to expand...

I think you cannot fully trust any, but there is a higher probability of identity theft/security breach using Google via chrome, rather than DDG.
 
Yeah Google is pretty obvious, put if I'd really want to hit people trying to protect themselves, I'd build an engine and claim it to be just perfect for you. I'm a bit paranaoid but I have a clue that's how big brother could operate.

I received message from DDG about Privacy it goes like this:

Privacy Mythbusting #3: Anonymized data is safe, right? (Er, no.)

Companies often tell you that sharing your data is safe because they "anonymize" it by first removing or obfuscating your personal information. However, this depersonalization leads to only partial anonymity, as companies still usually store and share your data grouped together. This data group can be analyzed, and in many cases, then linked back to you, individually, based on its contents. Detective emoji

Deanonymizing data has been studied for a long time. In 1990, Carnegie Mellon University researcher Latanya Sweeny showed that with just a list of gender, date of birth, and five digit zip code, you can uniquely identify, thereby deanonymizing, 87% of Americans!

Data deanonymization of this nature has taken place time and time again when companies release so-called "anonymized data," even with really good intentions such as for research purposes. For example, even though every effort was taken to anonymize data, people were still deanonymized through Netflix recommendations and AOL search histories.

Now imagine what happens when companies don't even make that effort when sharing your anonymized data. It's like trying to win a game of hide-and-seek like this:

Children trying to hide behind a tree but still visible.
Fig 1: Hide and Seek Champions

The only truly anonymized data is no data. That's why at DuckDuckGo we throw out your personal information every time you search, making sure we don't store anything that could be tied together to identify you. We protect your search history from everyone — even us!

Proudly Private,

Dax's Signature

Dax the Duck,
Mascot - DuckDuckGo
Click to expand...

I'd be curious to know if anybody has some knowledge about internet security if there is some truth in this about how they operate. The 'confidence' card they are playing could also be a away to put you to sleep thinking your a in 'good hands' with DDG. People who have things to hide would be enclined to you this engine, making it a perfect data collection engine for people who deal with sensitive mathers.
 
(I just picked a random Fake News thread for this)

Today on SotT is an article on an anti police bureaucrat getting carjacked. Her picture is very prominent and supposedly shows her injuries.

I have questions…

Did you see it and immediately accept it and believe it? (And gloat because she is anti-cop?)
Where is the bruising which would come from a blunt trauma? (She said she was beaten)
Who takes a selfie before dressing a wound with supposedly deep cuts? (Which have apparently been allowed to dry prior to dressing?)
Why does that blood look fake? Wrong color, too watery.
Who confronts a group of teenage carjackers instead of calling the police?
Why did the witness do nothing when he heard her kids screaming?
What real carjacker doesn’t actually know anything about carjacking or operating a vehicle?

Massively fishy smell here, imo. I have some theories on “why” but I’ll keep them to myself for now.

Here, I’ll make it easy for you and post the pic. Other observations: her hair still looks nicely coiffed. And she is so fortunate no “blood” got on her blouse! So lucky.
1694452383513.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom