Fake News Sites Are Changing Their Domain Name To Get Around Facebook Fact-Checkers (mashable.com) 197
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Mashable: In order to avoid Facebook's fact checking system, the site formerly known as YourNewsWire, one of the most well-known purveyors of fake news online, has simply rebranded. The site now goes by News Punch and posts fake news content similar to what it published under their former name, according to a report by Poynter. YourNewsWire co-founders Sinclair Treadway and Sean Adl-Tabatabai, who reside in California, founded the site in 2014. The two completely migrated the website from the "yournewswire.com" domain name to "newspunch.com" in November 2018. Treadway told Bloomberg at the time that they move was made due to declining revenue thanks to Facebook's fact-checking system. Under this program, fact-checking outlets like Snopes are able to mark content posted on Facebook as false, which in turn decreases the site's reach on Facebook. According to the investigation, the workaround has been a success. Content that Poynter itself had found to be previously marked false on "yournewswire.com" was ported over to the "newspunch.com" domain. When shared on Facebook, that same fake news content that now lived on "newspunch.com" was not marked as false under the fact-checking program. Facebook is reportedly rolling out features to thwart the site's workaround.
Even slashdot! (Score:1)
Cat and Mouse games. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Working on the wrong problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fake news is a problem. But the bigger problem is a whole lot of Americans are too effing stupid to figure it out for themselves that it's fake.
Re: Working on the wrong problem. (Score:1, Insightful)
Not at all. They did not let Clinton win, after all. That already shows a lot of common sense on part of the American people.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you meant Electoral College. And in fact it has elected every president since its inception.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fake news is a problem. But the bigger problem is a whole lot of Americans are too effing stupid to figure it out for themselves that it's fake.
Yeah, but Fb couldn't do anything about that if it wanted to. And it doesn't; smart people wouldn't give them all their info, tag people in photos, etc.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think it's as simple as that, propaganda has been effective since the dawn of humanity, and it's naive to believe there's just some magic switch we can flip to suddenly make it ineffective.
What's really needed is for today's intelligence agencies to be much more dynamic; they weren't ready for 9/11 and the level of terrorist threat, it took them a decade to get to a position where they can tackle that kind of threat, only in that decade we've seen resurgence of Russian intelligence operations in the
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure being smarter is the solution. In the past we saw that the fake news sites upped their game, creating entire fake news networks and brands to add credibility. People who post intelligent technical comments on Slashdot also push fake news too, so it doesn't seem to be a universal cure anyway.
It's probably going to be like spam and phishing emails - we will eventually get on top of it, but it will take time and be a constant battle.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the Gutenberg press was the beginning of propaganda papers, and if there was a time when people believed that it was true only because it was printed. Certainly there was a time when people regarded everything on the internet as accurate. Did such a time exist for the TV?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It's too easy to push fake news even inadvertently. It's usually not the fault of the person, just incomplete knowledge.
Even worse, once someone believes in something, it's very difficult to actuall
So, truthiness depends ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook has a simple blacklist of known fake news sites where they automatically label anything from those domains as suspect when posted. So just like spam blacklists, the work-around is to change domains.
post (Score:1)
Post
Re: (Score:2)
Post your 5 digit UID then, its been a long fucking time since 1999
Re:What did CNN change it's name to? (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably by being more honest and trustworthy than the actual frauds and liars to the point they offer a product that isn't dependent on being a low-rent internet outfit with no real operations.
Yeah, I get it, you want us to hate CNN and swear by your own partisan devotional, but when your devoted leader is barely stringing two coherent sentences together, you don't actually have much appeal.
Re: What did CNN change it's name to? (Score:1)
Are you kidding? I'm a pretty far left liberal, but I'm not retarded enough to think CNN or msnbc are objective or honest.
"Anonymous sources report that police are looking for an average person with dark hair."
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne... [dailymail.co.uk]
Or from 2008
https://www.politifact.com/fac... [politifact.com]
Or last year
https://www.11alive.com/articl... [11alive.com]
Or just in general
https://www.globalresearch.ca/... [globalresearch.ca]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...
Well that has zero credibility. Anything I read there would have to be independently verified. Post a sound source.
https://www.politifact.com/fac...
That says there was nothing wrong with the CNN footage.
https://www.11alive.com/articl...
Access denied from the server.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/...
Global research? That sounds super legit.
Well that's 0 for 4 on your side.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd Reply but the AC did a fine job.
But I do admire your chutzpah it's not everyone who will try an "it's wrong because I don't like it" argument
Re: (Score:2)
But I do admire your chutzpah it's not everyone who will try an "it's wrong because I don't like it" argument
I do admire your chutzpah to deeply misrepresent what I said. Let me spell it out for you again.
Misrepresent ? (Score:2)
Lets see
I don't like it
I didn't read what it said so I just made something up
I didn't actually bother to look
Didn't like it so I wasn't going to bother
No wasn't misrepresenting what you said. The AC did a fine job.
If you'd like more they just called the Democrat Governor of Virginia a Republican because he was caught wearing blackface (everybody knows democrats don't make fun of shvartses LOL) and before that they went with Michael Cohen being ordered to lie to congress which even Mueller facepalmed at.
Just face the fact youre a tribal ass
Re: What did CNN change it's name to? (Score:2)
You do not have to partisan to see the bullshit of CNN. Political affiliation, selective facts, selective angles.
They are all the same ilk: from Fox News to CNN - unabashedly partisan pieces of shit
Re:What did CNN change it's name to? (Score:4, Funny)
How will CNN and MSNBC get around this ban?
Simple.
Watch for CMM, and NSMBC coming soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer CNNNN https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Good Question (Score:2, Informative)
Especially with CNN
https://dailycaller.com/2018/0... [dailycaller.com]
Or more to the point their deliberate fabrication of the news
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne... [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:1)
You forgot the
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah what are you going to believe your lying eyes or your bias.
Re: (Score:1)
Everybody is biased, no exceptions. Irrelevant argument.
As for your sources. Not wasting my time or bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the best source you can come up with, I'll take "my bias" for $100 Alex.
Well looks like your bias won and is running the show in your head. That wasn't the only source and if you hit duck duck go you can find all you like saying the same.
Re: (Score:2)
I am a solid centrist who reads all sides of the issue, but simply won't bother with tabloids or those who promote them.
I didn't question the facts, only who you chose to link too.
BTW, Elvis was not abducted by aliens.
You showed your bias up front, I'll give you that, but only that.
You are now dismissed.
Re: (Score:2)
You are now dismissed.
LOL it's so cute when emotional two year olds try smug and condescending especially after saying a bunch of things meant to make them feel good about themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some points out your acting like a child and your response is
Nanana That's you what am I
Q.E.D.
Re: (Score:2)
But hey, it it gets you through the night.
You acted like an idiot child, so I responded to you as though you were.
You have said nothing since that makes me change my mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly.
But hey, it it gets you through the night.
You acted like an idiot child, so I responded to you as though you were.
You have said nothing since that makes me change my mind.
LOL what kind of idiot are you ? to think anyone would ever believe you are capable of changing your mind ?
Especially after you loudly proclaimed you don't care about evidence or what you can see in your first post ?
I am not here to change your mind. I am here to mock you so you serve as an example to others.
Re: (Score:2)
Linking to tabloid news is just silly and I won't take anything there seriously. I would of had respect for it presented on *AP, or hell, even Fox news. But not a tabloid.
And you know nothing of me.
Let's change that shall we?
My main news page I use is: https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news That gives perspectives from L/C/R, I find the C tends to be the least sensationalist without the rampant vitriol of either the L or R.
I own a Colt 1911 because sh
Re: (Score:2)
only questioned your source, not the evidence.
Linking to tabloid news is just silly and I won't take anything there seriously. I would of had respect for it presented on *AP, or hell, even Fox news. But not a tabloid.
Bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
I never once questioned anything but the source. As I refuse to visit a tabloid how could I question the evidence if I never saw it.
Oh well.
Peace out man.
Re: What did CNN change it's name to? (Score:1)
And who can forget...
https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan-phillips-video
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you have a citation for your assertion that fact checkers don't check the facts?
Also, if a site creates news that has not bearing on the truth that site should get black-holed in my opinion - even though they may have real news too. This is because otherwise you legitimize the made up shit by saying "But! They have real news too!"
Re: (Score:1)
The real problem is "real" news sites that post commentary masquerading as hard news. Commentary can be opinionated and potentially cherry pick some facts over others. News is supposed to be even handed and give facts, regardless of if they support a narrative or not. So long as a source clearly distinguishes commentary from news reporting, it shouldn't matter if a "fact" checker agrees or not with the commentary postings. Especially since you can be 100% factual while ignoring 99% of the facts that tel
Re: (Score:1)
The real problem is "real" news sites that post commentary masquerading as hard news.
No, because any serious news site has news in the "news" section and commentary in the "op-ed" section. Just because you are too dumb to know what section you are reading doesn't mean that you are right.
Especially since you can be 100% factual while ignoring 99% of the facts that tell a different story.
And every fact-checker I have seen will mark it as unreliable, citing that while that 1% fact told is correct, it fails to mention the other 99%. It is not our fault that you are using alternative-facts-checker.com
Re: (Score:1)
But blackholed by who, exactly? Who would you trust with that power over controlling the Official Truth?
Re: (Score:1)
I've seen your truth. It's more like madness. A clawing ball of hatred where everyone but yourself is to blame for whatever imagined ill afflicts you.
Calm down and take stock of your life before you go too far down the rabbit hole.
Re: (Score:3)
i mean, yeah, or you can just get news somewhere other than facebook.
Re:Remember it's not what is being said (Score:5, Interesting)
"Mostly false" is usually a hedge bet. It doesn't mean the referenced claim is any more worthy of consideration.
I can make the statement that "the daytime sky is blue because there are millions of blue fairies flying around during the day, and they sleep at night." It's easy for a fact-checker to say that claim is false, because the physics of a blue sky are well-understood. Then I can turn around and attack the fact-checkers for slandering me, because it's obvious that the sky is indeed blue. By including just a small bit of truth, I can both appeal to people with only a simple understanding (like those who have looked outside and seen a blue sky), and also give myself ammunition for a later counter-attack against the fact-checkers: "See? This part is provably true, and they didn't acknowledge it! They're clearly biased against me!"
That counter-attack itself serves multiple goals. Of course, it makes my life easier if fact-checkers are discredited, since I can lie with impunity later, but it also provides a bit more cover of the original claim. While everyone is discussing how truthful the "sky is blue" claim is, they're not discussing the claim about "blue fairies sleep at night". If my political goal is to subsidize my chain of hotels catering to fairies, I can fill the conversation with arguments about fact-checkers and truth meters, while quietly pushing my agenda. If I can lie enough and manufacture enough controversy to discredit all fact-checkers, then I can lie with complete impunity. Even new start-up fact-checkers can be quickly shot down by lumping them in with my previously-discredited victims.
This is why it's important to read the full articles. The tiny assessments can give you an idea of how severely a politician is trying to manipulate you, but to really understand what's true or false, you have to read the fact-checker's full report.
Re: (Score:2)
"the daytime sky is blue because there are millions of blue fairies flying around during the day, and they sleep at night."
I found your explanation very plausible :)
Thing is. Do we really want sites like 'facebook' to judge for us if something is true or not. Sometimes it's obvious. Sometimes it's indeed plain misinformation. Sometimes it's a joke. Next time it's for commercial reasons to cripple the competition. Next time it's politics.
While i don't mind fact-checking sites, why do people on facebook not just link to articles on such sites. And yes, facebook may have good intentions, but, the big but is, i don't trust facebook
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
American jackoffs with guns kill over 39,000 Americans per year.
Re: Remember it's not what is being said (Score:1)
Mostly themselves or other criminals. But you're missing the point, which is that the "fact checkers" are quite often operating with a political bias.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
American jackoffs with guns kill over 39,000 Americans per year.
Are you somehow trying to be sarcastic, or something?
'cause the death by firearm yearly rate is about 13,000 in the US, not "over 39,000."
Why the inflation? I pulled 13,000 as a number after comparing multiple sources. How'd you get three times over?!
Re: Remember it's not what is being said (Score:5, Informative)
My figures come direct from the Center for Disease Control, which is part of the Executive Branch of the United States government. Would you care to tell us where your "13,000" figure comes from?
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/press... [cdc.gov]
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
The "over 39.000" was what the Center for Disease Control reported for the calendar year 2018 as of December 28, 2018.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you consider someone killing themselves with a gun to be "American jackoffs with guns kill over 39,000 Americans per year".
Because I'll tell you what, to the majority of Americans, Suicide doesn't count. Does any country in the world include suicides in their murder statistics like you are trying to do? After all, suicide is murder right?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, absolutely. The standard we were discussing was "gun deaths". If you use a gun to kill yourself and you are an American, you are an American jackoff killing an American.
By definition.
Re: (Score:1)
You get more dishonest by the day. Have you looked in a mirror? How do you live with yourself. I could never walk around spewing lies all day. You have some nerve buddy...
Re: (Score:2)
That's disingenuous. When people kill themselves with a firearm, they may or may not have done it by other means. And those other means may or may not involve other people. They might throw themselves off a bridge, or in front of a train. So the actual figure of relevance is how many people would not have killed themselves without easy access to a firearm, less the number of lives (or even hours) lost if they used other means which harm other people, like getting really drunk and then driving across a highw
Re: (Score:3)
Well, we know for sure that rates of suicide go way up when there is easy access to firearms (especially handguns). This is not controversial. More guns = more suicide.
Re: Remember it's not what is being said (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only do they go way up, but they go way, way, WAY up.
There is a definitive correlation between gun ownership rates and suicide rates.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n... [harvard.edu]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Fucking idiot more than half are suicides . " jackoffs with guns kill over 39,000 Americans per year." There are NOT 39k people being killed by other people.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said there was? Reread the post. And yes, 39,000 Americans were killed by Americans with guns last year (and the year before and before - see CDC statistics above).
Can't you fucking read English? Words don't change magically on the page just to fit your agenda. Americans water the tree of liberty with the blood of 39,000 Americans every year.
Re: (Score:1)
Here you are being a lying scumbag only half a page down from the last lie. SUICIDE IS NOT SOMEBODY MURDERING ANOTHER PERSON! Can't even be honest with yourself anymore I bet.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're cherry-picking. 38.something K was ALL INJURIES to firearms, including suicides.
Homicides (that's ded dead, not injured) 14.4. Suicides the balance.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/... [cdc.gov]
Stop cherrypicking to try to improve your position. But I understand, it's human nature to do so.
Re: Remember it's not what is being said (Score:4, Informative)
Look again. It's not "injuries". 39,000 was the number of DEATHS by firearm. Mortality means death.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/press... [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The premise doesn't require refutation because it's false on its face.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/2... [cnbc.com]
Re: (Score:1)
This is not informative you fucking disingenuous asshole.
In 2016, roughly 22,000 of the 33,000 firearms deaths were suicides. So nearly 70% of firearms deaths in the US are Americans fucking offing themselves.
So where do most of the remaining deaths come from? Handgun deaths, in democratic anti-gun strongholds. The most deadly places to be in the United States are democratic strongholds and are perpetrated by low income impoverished youth by handguns.
Straight from the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-
Re: (Score:2)
Shut up Racist!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And while we're trying to deal with the jackoffs killing 39,000, why would we want to add the problem of 2,000 more to the bunch?
Re: (Score:2)
The simple answer is that people in the United States illegally commit all crimes at a lower rate than American citizens. So, illegal immigrants actually bring down the crime rate.
Don't you want to bring down the crime rate?
But don't take it from me, take it from the conservative/libertarian Cato Institute:
https://www.cato.org/blog/whit... [cato.org]
Re:DNC legalized killing live babies (Score:5, Informative)
For those of you playing along at home, that statement is what's known as "bullshit".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world... [bbc.com]
If It isn't Slashdot's king of Fake News (Score:1)
The exception would allow women to have an abortion for up to nine months of pregnancy for “age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of ‘health’ that normally comes to mind,”
Good job as always.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh, thank you?
And by the way, "up to nine months of pregnancy" is not the same as "born fully alive".
The new law does not allow aborting a pregnancy after the baby has been born. No part of the law says anything like that and saying that it does is a) bearing false witness, and b) blood libel. Also, fuck you and your god-bothering bullshit. If you want a christian version of sharia law that bad, there are countries you can go to.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And by the way, "up to nine months of pregnancy" is not the same as "born fully alive".
It's a baby and it's alive dude. It can survive on its own and there is no medical reason to kill the baby
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you discounting childbirth as a meaningful event? We count them as babies when they are born. Anything else is just religious woo.
Re: (Score:3)
Why are you discounting childbirth as a meaningful event? We count them as babies when they are born. Anything else is just religious woo.
I need a my face reaction for that. Just what is the magic of exiting the birth canal that makes a baby human when it wasn't 30 minutes before ?
Re: (Score:2)
Liberal agendas. You didn't know?
Re: (Score:2)
We call that magic "childbirth" and if you've ever been there for one, you know why it's magic.
Re: (Score:2)
My kids were delivered by c section I guess they aren't human in your book.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they were born. One minute they were inside, part of the mother's body and then they were outside, individual human beings.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sorry but a child is never part of the mothers body
You need to learn what a placenta is
Re: (Score:2)
I'm defending the notion that it's the mother's choice. I'm defending the notion that it's none of your goddamn business, or the goddamn business of the government. I'm defending reproduction as being a personal decision and not one that christian busybody jackoffs get to decide because they've invented some biblical justification.
Re: (Score:2)
If the mother chooses to dump the baby in the dumpster on the way home from giving birth, why should the government interfere in that?
If I choose to not support a baby I fathered, why should the government interfere in that?
You're complete lack of logic and apologies for infanticide are stifling.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we all agree that would be murder. Once the baby is born, it is an individual, indisputable human being.
Why do the anti-choice people always fantasize so much about murdering newborns? I mean, it's like a thing with you people.
Re: Remember it's not what is being said (Score:5, Informative)
This is factually accurate, supported by numerous studies and basic crime statistics where there is a body plus a person found guilty for the death.
[citation needed [splcenter.org]]
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit, did you just cite convicted defamers and political activist group SPLC in a "citation needed" link?
Nope. They settled that case. [theatlantic.com] And there's nothing even slightly illogical about citing a political activism group in such a case, either.
Re: (Score:2)
You ARE trying out for a SNL part, aren't you!?
Re: (Score:2)
You ARE trying out for a SNL part, aren't you!?
You know that wasn't clever the first time you said it, right? It's no cleverer now.
Re: Remember it's not what is being said (Score:4, Informative)
Unless you're reading a different claim than I am, according to Snopes [snopes.com] the figure is based on a misreading of a GAO report which actually covered over 50 years (not 4) of arrest (not conviction) records.
Re: (Score:1)
The difference between factcheckers (including sites like Snopes) is that they'll actually give checkable citations for the facts they check. And if someday you find an error, they'll publish a retraction/correction.
You're not going to get any retraction or correction from patriotictruth.ru
Re:Most important question (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference between factcheckers (including sites like Snopes) is that they'll actually give checkable citations for the facts they check. And if someday you find an error, they'll publish a retraction/correction.
You're not going to get any retraction or correction from patriotictruth.ru
The problem with fact checking sites such as Snopes is *what* they cite to verify something to be true or not. Any bias on the part of the fact checkers will likely also bias what they cite. Feel free to mark this comment as "Troll", but Snopes isn't exactly unbiased.
Re:Most important question (Score:5, Insightful)
Nor should you expect it to be. Think about this: it doesn't matter the bias of the factchecker because everyone is biased. What matters is accuracy and accountability. Do they supply multiple sources for their claims? Are they willing to revisit and correct and retract? That's what it takes to be a reliable fact checker. It just so happens that there are more of such sites on the Left. And that, ultimately, is because there currently exists an ascendant class on the Right that benefits disproportionately from fake news. If you need me to provide citations and examples, I'd be happy to do so, but I'm guessing that you understand what I say is true.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When their fact checking is influenced by their bias they are nothing but biased editorial pushing a narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why accuracy and accountability matter. That's why sources matter, and why their willingness to correct and retract when necessary matter.
Everyone is biased. You just need a little discernment.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone is biased. You just need a little discernment.
It's just an aspect of puritanical thinking. It divides the world into purely good and bad with no shades of grey. It's like, steal bread to eat, well, you're going to hell to be tortured for all eternity. Go on a mass murdering spree? Well, you're going to hell to be tortured for all eternity.
The mindset has no nuance, and no shades of grey. And it leads people to dismiss good but imperfect things like fact checkers. Because if it's not RIGHT then it's
Re: (Score:2)
Except, that "fact checkers" have been held up as infallible arbiters of truth with lines like, "We know Trump lied, because Snopes said...."
I agree with you that it is puritanical thinking, but in this case the thinking is that Snopes gave them bad ratings, so they must be fake news.
Re: (Score:1)
And yet, you fail to cite even a single instance...