As you’ve likely heard by now, Facebook has taken its war against ‘fake news’ to a whole other level — employing third-party media and fact-checking organizations to judge whether news items are legitimate — to the consternation of countless users who see the platform overstepping red lines
Servile corporate media immediately parroted the wealth of benefits that Facebook’s plan will ostensibly provide, from an alert and gateway system forced onto articles deemed “disputed,” to the organizations making the ‘kiss of death’ judgment call: Snopes, FactCheck.org, Politifact, and ABC News.
Anyone with passing knowledge of bias in media is probably spitting out their coffee — all four organizations are notoriously left-leaning and liberal, and the list includes no outlets with any other of myriad ideological tilts.
Indeed, right-leaning outlets from Breitbart to the Drudge Report, as well as the sizable alternative media community — who, collectively, held themselves to higher journalistic standards throughout the election cycle than “old media” titans like the New York Times and Washington Post — quickly condemned the unabashed bias imbued in Facebook’s plan.
Mark Zuckerberg, a large consensus concluded, just declared war on dissent — if not information, itself.
But in an article intended to criticize purveyors of ‘fake news’ and applaud the social media platform’s oh-so-noble efforts to strike such outlets from the American interwebs, The Atlantic’s Kaveh Waddell posited, “Will Facebook’s Fake News Warning Become a Badge of Honor?”
Waddell asks this question, the reader doesn’t discover until more than halfway through the article, through a lens of myopic bias — if not outright scorn — against anyone who dare question the motives of Facebook or its choice of fact-checkers.
“There’s a danger that people who are disinclined to trust traditional sources of information will treat Facebook’s warnings as a badge of honor,” Waddell clarifies. “If fact-checking organizations deem a story questionable, they might be more likely to read and share it, rather than less. There’s reason to believe this group might think of itself as a counterculture, and take the position that anything that ‘the man’ rejects must have a grain of subversive truth to it.”
For a journalist in a nationally regarded publication to display such seething condescension toward a category of people perhaps most critical to preventing a narrowing of news media to a single viewpoint is criminally self-interested, indeed — evincing the paranoia among old media to validate its reporting in the wake of horrendous election coverage.
Regardless of his patronizing tone, Waddell’s question presents what might be the thinnest silver lining to having a Facebook-approved information gatekeeper — news deemed “disputed” will be viewed by non-establishment thinkers as bearing the Scarlet Letter C — censored for being problematic for the political elite.
In other words, this soft censorship could facilely create a Streisand Effect — whereby efforts to suppress content backfire and instead draw greater attention to something than it ever would have received otherwise.
The Fakestream media you and I have learned to distrust is a direct result of the seductive doctrine that you can make up your own version of the truth, just as good as the real thing. J School students are still taught blatant nonsense today, and when they grow up, they will follow today's J professors. The term "political correctness" was actually coined by the Soviets during the Stalin era.
The habit of P.C. lying in the USSR was immensely destructive, because the party was convinced every five years that Russian agriculture would finally be able to feed the people. Yet agriculture always failed because it was based on lies, with every layer of the system lying to its own bosses and subordinates.
In an amazing irony, the Russians and Chinese have learned to value real science (not climate fraud). Truthful information is needed for market economies to work, contrary to leftist fictioneers. Ultimately, a regime of lies leads to suicide.
The Soviet Union fell from its own internal contradictions, and when the truth broke through in the Gorbachev era, the system collapsed. The bubble of lies burst.
Today, we can see the same thing happening in the Fakestream.
A few Fakestream voices, like Howie Kurtz, are trying desperately to restrain the vulgar mob, but the Bamster, Hillary, and John Podesta are actually validating the most paranoid suspicions of the left.
Psychologically, there is no difference now between the Democrats and Jim Jones or Scientology. Closed-minded utopian cults are all the same: they all follow messianic personalities like Obama and Hillary, and they all drive out any source of dissent.
But dissent and open debate are what keeps us in touch with reality, a point that applies to nations as well as individuals. North Korea is run by a closed cult, like Iran and Saudi Arabia. No dissent is allowed, and little by little a Party Line takes over that drifts out of touch with reality.
Because Eurosocialism is identical to Obamanoia, we are seeing stunning parallels between the U.S. and Europe. The same political ideology is running things over there and over here. These people are still stuck in soft Marxism, having learned nothing from the fall of the Soviet Empire. They are doomed to failure.
Mental disorders show up when people lose touch with reality. What we are seeing today is a kind of madness, and if the Democrats don't fix themselves, they will fail and fail again.
Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard said on Twitter that the United States is funding and arming Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The Congresswoman from Hawaii wrote on Twitter, “If you are I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Why does our gov get a free pass on this?”
It should be noted that Gabbard is a United States army veteran and a member of the House Committees on Foreign affairs and Armed Services. She was also the member of Congress to introduce the Stop Arming Terrorists Act. While introducing the bill, she cited articles from both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal that said the United States is supporting rebels that are actually allied with an Al-Qaeda affiliate.
Gabbard didn’t stop there. She relied on some of the transcripts of those Hillary Clinton Goldman Sachs speeches that were released to further bolster her claim. “The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda.”
Hillary said that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar are funding Syrian jihadists. These are three nations that have received funding and weapons from the United States. Considering that they have received funding from the United States and then Hillary says in a speech, which she is being paid for no less, that these countries are supplying ISIS as well, these countries are selling those weapons to ISIS.
“This madness must end. We must stop arming terrorists.” Gabbard’s bill would prohibit any federal agency from supporting a terrorist group or give support through other countries that would either support terrorists directly or indirectly. It’s a little unnerving that a bill had to be introduced for this to stop, but it has.
Obama has said that he wants to fight ISIS. It’s hard to fight against them when they are using the weapons that were sold to other countries. Not to mention that the funding that has gone to some of these nations has found its way in the pockets of these ISIS soldiers. Again, the answer seems really simple.
If you cut off funding and the sale of weapons to these nations that are known to be supporters of terrorist causes, then it hurts the terrorists! Do these people not have common sense? It also makes me wonder why they didn’t stop the sale of weapons right away when they discovered that the rebels were just giving the weapons to the terrorists that they were fighting.
Then again, Obama did approve an operation that was able to release 9,000 ISIS soldiers. By saying that they were going to wait until a city they were going to attack was clear of all civilians, Obama allowed an estimated 9,000 ISIS soldiers to walk out of the area that was being attacked. Those could have been 9,000 casualties that wouldn’t exist anymore.