I read an article (sorry hidden behind a paywall but you can search it) Google wants to crack down on 'fake news'.
Right off the bat this should make anyone nervous. What exactly would qualify as 'fake news'?
CNN is a manufacturer of lies but I doubt they'll be touched, right?
Facebook and Google (two supporters of the Democrat party) are now positioning themselves as 'arbiters' of news.
It wouldn't surprise me what qualifies as 'fake' is actually stuff that goes against the progressive narrative. Worse, if it does support the narrative even if found to not be factually "accurate" but is true in their conceptualization of what constitutes the 'big picture' and what they consider to be in a 'deeper sense' then it will be allowed.
'Yeah, yeah the models are off but think of the importance of saving the planet!' I remember when the PQ lost the referendum in 1995, then leader Jacques Parizeau (a slobby feller) blamed it on the 'money and ethnic' vote in a drunken moment of stupid xenophobia. My neighbour, a separatist, the next day rationalized it thusly: It's true but you can't say that!
I'll let you decipher that gibberish.
To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't be surprised if they shut me down one day. Every morning I log in paranoid thinking I'll see 11 years worth of posts...gone.
Anyway.
Forgive me if I don't like the sound of this. Right off the bat this should concern all citizens about the real possibility of censorship on the simple grounds of not agreeing with the narrative set by Democrats and the left.
The timing of this is also interesting. Hillary lost ergo it must be because people were fooled. Not because she was a shitty candidate. No way. According to their algorithms they're too smart to believe that.
Of course, it's possible all the 'fake news' actually helped Hillary more than Trump. We saw the collusion in the media play out and Google and Facebook seem all too willing to play the game and join the ranks of conspiring against people.
How else to view this?
UPDATE:
Well that didn't take long now did it? And it's unfolding exactly the way we thought.
According to Reason:
Right off the bat this should make anyone nervous. What exactly would qualify as 'fake news'?
CNN is a manufacturer of lies but I doubt they'll be touched, right?
Facebook and Google (two supporters of the Democrat party) are now positioning themselves as 'arbiters' of news.
It wouldn't surprise me what qualifies as 'fake' is actually stuff that goes against the progressive narrative. Worse, if it does support the narrative even if found to not be factually "accurate" but is true in their conceptualization of what constitutes the 'big picture' and what they consider to be in a 'deeper sense' then it will be allowed.
'Yeah, yeah the models are off but think of the importance of saving the planet!' I remember when the PQ lost the referendum in 1995, then leader Jacques Parizeau (a slobby feller) blamed it on the 'money and ethnic' vote in a drunken moment of stupid xenophobia. My neighbour, a separatist, the next day rationalized it thusly: It's true but you can't say that!
I'll let you decipher that gibberish.
To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't be surprised if they shut me down one day. Every morning I log in paranoid thinking I'll see 11 years worth of posts...gone.
Anyway.
Forgive me if I don't like the sound of this. Right off the bat this should concern all citizens about the real possibility of censorship on the simple grounds of not agreeing with the narrative set by Democrats and the left.
The timing of this is also interesting. Hillary lost ergo it must be because people were fooled. Not because she was a shitty candidate. No way. According to their algorithms they're too smart to believe that.
Of course, it's possible all the 'fake news' actually helped Hillary more than Trump. We saw the collusion in the media play out and Google and Facebook seem all too willing to play the game and join the ranks of conspiring against people.
How else to view this?
UPDATE:
Well that didn't take long now did it? And it's unfolding exactly the way we thought.
According to Reason:
"In a way, describing Assistant Professor Melissa Zimdars' list of online outlets to be wary of as a list of "fake news" sites is itself a little misleading. But that is how the non-fake news outlets are describing her work. Zimdars, a communications professor at Merrimaack College in Massachusetts, put together a list of what she calls "False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and/or Satirical 'News' Sources.'"
Only two of those modifiers suggest actual faked news—"false" and "satirical." The other two words are judgment calls that we make ourselves as readers. Nevertheless, reporting is describing Zimdars' work as a list of "fake news" sites. And there are now web browser extensions that create pop-ups to warn visitors when they're looking at stories from one of these sites. This one by Brian and Feldman at New York Magazine uses Zimdars' list as a foundation.
But Zimdars' list is awful. It includes not just fake or parody sites; it includes sites with heavily ideological slants like Breitbart, LewRockwell.com, Liberty Unyielding, and Red State. These are not "fake news" sites. They are blogs that—much like Reason—have a mix of opinion and news content designed to advance a particular point of view. Red Statehas linked to pieces from Reason on multiple occasions, and years ago I wrote a guest commentary for Breitbart attempting to make a conservative case to support gay marriage recognition."
I'm starting to believe progressivism is on its death bed.
Isn't Blogger owned by Google?
ReplyDeleteI hope they never mess any with my blog site.