It is now a hobby to report FAKE NEWS.Facebook Targets Innocent Websites in Search for FAKE NEWS

It is now a hobby to report FAKE NEWS.Facebook Targets Innocent Websites in Search for FAKE NEWSImage result for fake news harassment on fb

Have a grudge don’t like a news organisation  here is the new trend on fakebook REPORT IT AS FAKE NEWS but don’t try to report a news story that is in business with fakebook as you cant report it.

If it makes fakebook $$$ there is no link to report the FAKE NEWS article.

As of february we have received many reports from other website owners that facebook has targeted the website they worked so hard to build and grow.

Many of the alternative media organisations have been systematically targeted by facebook and its users

Infowars

Natural News

World Truth TV

GeoEngineeringWatch.org

IntelliHub.com

PrisonPlanet.com

VeteransToday.com

Now we are not saying these websites are always credible sources and yes the do sensationalise articles to reach a larger audience but these websites have been around for years and many started learning from them and then moved on.

A lot of what we see is elimination of direct competition for facebook as these sites take facebook’s customers away from facebook’s advertising platform.

So we did a test and hired a private individual to spend an entire day on facebook targeting every article they saw as fake news and report back to us.

Here are a few screenshots of how it works to get revenge on any website you do not like.

Now whats funny is fb  promised to test new tools that would allow users to report misinformation, and to enlist fact-checking organizations including Snopes and PolitiFact to help litigate the veracity of links reported as suspect

Now as Politifact has proven to be a credible source but SNOPS has many times published fake news to spin it in the democratic party favour so SNOPS is no credible source to call out FAKE NEWS as they are purveyors of FAKE NEWS themselves.

By analyzing patterns of reading and sharing, the company said, it might be able to penalize articles that are shared at especially low rates by those who read them — a signal of dissatisfaction. Finally, it said, it would try to put economic pressure on bad actors in three ways: by banning disputed stories from its advertising ecosystem; by making it harder to impersonate credible sites on the platform; and, crucially, by penalizing websites that are loaded with too many ads.

Now we have no problem with stopping sites that impersonate credible news sites and sites that are nothing but ads by targeting every site on the web but the ones who pay fb a fee for marketing they are themselves becoming the fake news site

I think Mark Zuckerberg needs to rethink his approach and have a place where those wrongly targeted by facebook’s blanket FAKE NEWS targeting to appeal and be heard.

All news sites have at one point or another published news that was not credible just ask CNN, FOX NEWS, MSN, and many other organisations we saw so many fake news stories saying trump did this trump did that on live tv and on fb platform I do not see fb targeting those firms O thats right they pay fb for advertising so that excuses them from the title FAKE NEWS.

Well it does in facebook’s eyes or should we say pocket book.

Facebook faces a third conundrum—getting rid of fake news might actually hurt its ad revenue. Interacting with news that confirms pre-existing beliefs triggers positive emotional responses in users and drives huge user engagement. News is a major part of what people interact with Facebook, and whether a piece of content is true or not has no clear correlation to how many clicks it generates.

As media expert Clay Shirky put it to The Guardian, “We love bedtime stories.” Even, perhaps especially, when they’re fairy tales.

Filtering fake news would also have second-order effects that could not only reduce daily engagement, but drive users away from Facebook altogether, at least as a news source. While Trump supporters have been particularly skeptical of large news organizations and traditional fact checking, more than half of Clinton backers feel the same way. We’re a nation in the late stages of democracy, with a populace deeply distrustful of any and all authority and expertise. Social media’s dominance is both a cause and effect of that. We spend time on Facebook because we think our friends are better sources of information than pinhead professors or noodling newspaper editors.

If Facebook were to be perceived as having become just another top-down entity telling people what to believe, it would endanger a core element of its appeal. There would be a significant opening for a competing social-news platform that positioned itself as more open and unfiltered.

That said, there are counterpoint business arguments in favor of filtering fake news. Facebook has avoided many of the concerns about trolling and harassment that have been such a drag on Twitter’s prospects, in part because of evolving features that allow users to filter and report content and tailor their ad preferences. However, toxicity fueled by partisan fake news could eventually generate headwinds for Facebook similar to Twitter’s woes.

http://fakenewswatch.com a website created to list fake news sites shows this

 

HARVARD University USES FAKE PROFESSOR’S LIST TO SMEAR REAL NEWS SITES

Harvard University has picked up on a Merrimack College professor’s list of “fake news” sites, including the Daily Caller, the Drudge Report, Breitbart News, the Washington Examiner, the Washington Free Beacon, Independent Journal Review (IJR), and even Bill Kristol’s relentlessly Never-Trump The Weekly Standard. FrontPage Mag, Jihad Watch, and Truth Revolt also make the list. It sure is great to have our intellectual betters at Harvard explain to us what are “illegitimate” sources of news, but there’s just one catch: the “fake news” list doesn’t contain even a single site that is the slightest bit Left of center.

That’s right: BuzzFeed, with its fake dossier on Donald Trump, didn’t make the list. Nor did the New York Times or the Washington Post or CNN, despite all their no-there-there hysteria about Russia “hacking” the 2016 presidential election. Nor does the Huffington Post or Salon or Slate or Glenn Greenwald’s fact-free Intercept. Harvard’s list is clearly intended not to warn people away from hoax news sources and stories, but to demonize, stigmatize and marginalize the perspective of the half of the American electorate that American electorate that voted for Donald Trump.

It’s a clever presentation: there are actual fake news sites on the Harvard list, sites that publish wholly false or unsubstantiated stories simply as clickbait in order to generate revenue. But to add to them some of the most prominent conservative sites on the web makes the agenda clear: Harvard, and the Leftist intelligentsia in general, is trying to stigmatize and marginalize every point of view except its own. Merrimack College’s Melissa Zimdars and those who take her list seriously at Harvard and elsewhere apparently think that if they call every perspective they dislike “fake news,” they will be able to destroy the influence of such perspectives, and attain the hegemony of their own point of view.

If I called Harvard a “fake university” and Zimdars a “fake professor,” few would take me seriously, but when they call my work “fake news,” they have money, influence, power and prestige, if not facts, to back up their claims. Harvard’s “fake news” list, like charges of “hate speech,” is a tool in the hands of the powerful, used to silence dissent from their line. The only problem with this is that their line contains so many obvious falsehoods and fallacies (Islam is a religion of peace, poverty causes terrorism, etc.) that it will continue to falter at the bar of reality, and people will continue to look to these so-called “fake news” sites for the truth.

The list contains subcategories; Zimdars labels my Jihad Watch as “Unknown.” This classification she explains thusly: “Unknown (tag unidentified): Sources that have not yet been analyzed (many of these were suggested by readers/users or are found on other lists and resources). Help us expand our resource by providing us information!” So a site that purports to identify “fake news” relies on unsubstantiated rumor, hearsay and innuendo to make its classifications. Doesn’t that make Zimdars’ Harvard-endorsed list a quintessential example of…fake news?

Harvard’s list is another example of how the Left today, and particularly the academic Left, is authoritarian, intolerant of dissent, and increasingly intent on demonizing and destroying its opponents, rather than engaging them in rational debate. Liberal journalist Kirsten Powers, author of The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech, recalls that when she was growing up, “I can’t remember anyone ever suggesting that conservative views were illegitimate and unworthy of debate.” Now, that is all Leftists ever say. David Horowitz has, of course, argued that the Left is inherently authoritarian, and that any Leftist regime will move to crush dissent; now Harvard is proving him right once again.

This is generally because as Leftists envision establishing a truly just society on earth, those who oppose them are inevitably stigmatized as morally evil, and consequently are accorded as little tolerance as the medieval Roman Catholic Church gave to those it considered heretics. No less a luminary than St. Thomas Aquinas argued that because the Catholic state had to be concerned with the moral and spiritual wellbeing of its people, as well as their material condition, heretics were enemies of the state, and thus were deservedly executed. If today’s Left had a patron saint, it would be Aquinas, for that alone.

The contemporary Left so closely identifies its agenda with all that is good that it considers those who oppose its imperatives to be beyond the pale of reasonable discourse and decent human beings. The foes of the Left must therefore be shouted down, discredited, and destroyed altogether. Harvard and Facebook are busy doing just that.

Mr Zuckerberg, casting Facebook more as a communication platform than a media site, takes a similar stance.

“We believe in giving people a voice, which means erring on the side of letting people share what they want whenever possible,”

But old authorities become muted in a world where users’ voices are pre-eminent. In an interview with The New Yorker, Mr Obama complained that, on a Facebook page, an explanation of global warming by a Nobel Prize winner looks no different than one by a paid climate change denier.

He added: “The capacity to disseminate misinformation, wild conspiracy theories, to paint the opposition in wildly negative light without any rebuttal — that has accelerated in ways that much more sharply polarise the electorate and make it very difficult to have a common conversation.”

In the wake of a bitterly divisive US election, Facebook users are retreating deeper into their “filter bubbles”.

The bitterness of the loss means that many on the losing side have been systematically “unfriending people who voted for the other candidate” ands reporting in packs anything they do not agree with as FAKE NEWS

Let us know what you think

 

Leave a Reply