r/Republican • u/The_seph_i_am Centrist Republican • Dec 02 '16
New rule: we wont be lead by their narrative--No Fake News.
In response to the recent revelations regarding individual media outlets purposefully releasing fake new articles for the express purpose of spreading disinformation, a new rule will be added to the sub.
No "fake" news or titles that intentionally mislead. (Rewording titles is fine)
Satire will be approved on a case by case basis. [It must be clearly satire.].
What we mean by misleading:
Title: "Five killed by x party members!"
Body of text: no one died and the assailants party affiliation is completely unknown
What we mean by fake:
An article written for the express purpose of spreading disinformation to support a narrative and whose key points are wholely and completely founded on fiction. Disinformation is information that sounds to be true because it fits a specific bias but isn't in the slightest.
Anyone wishing to report an article for disinformation must also post a comment to that article explaining why it's disinformation and, when available, a link to an legitimate news source that shows why the claim is false. This gives the OP a chance to respond and dispute the claim. Mods will determine if the claim has merit and will ether stickie the comment and remove the post or will remove the comment and ignore the report. OPs do not have to respond for the mods to make their decision but it will help in their defense.
Helpful hint. If the article is
from word press or
a site that doesn't have a single article to speak of besides this one article,
or if doesn't have a single other media outlet except the website that requires tin foil hats to view properly talking about the subject of the article
The article is likely fake.
25
18
u/Not_Cleaver Conservative Dec 02 '16
I'm not sure if this has been a big issue here. The posts that could be classified as fake news were either downvoted heavily and/or disputed in the comments section.
That said I'm glad that there will be a crackdown against fake news. I think the prevalence of fake news on other subs decreases their credibility. And I'm glad that it is a total ban on fake news rather than a partisan perspective. For example, r/politics has bannned pro-Trump fake news, but it seems to be awash with articles tying Trump to being a dictator and linking him to his fringe supporters. I think one can criticize Trump without engaging in conspiracy theories and fear-mongering.
8
5
u/wrghyjtukiulihgfd Dec 03 '16 edited Dec 03 '16
What are the rules on posting news stories about Global Warming or Creationism?
Example: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/30/global-temperatures-plunge-icy-silence-climate-alarmists/
Which was tweeted by the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
But is largely being reported by multiple sites as being false.
7
u/The_seph_i_am Centrist Republican Dec 03 '16
Is there a peer reviewed cited science journal regarding the matter?
I find this video pretty good at helping people determine what to look for regarding science discoveries.
Hell even John Oliver did a video on it.
Which is why we ask our subscribers to report it but to also provide a source that shows why the post is disinformation.
One thing I want to make sure we understand, just because a narrative fits our interests doesn't mean it is factual. We need to make sure people understand this less we find ourselves building platforms with poor foundations.
Jesus said the wise man builds his house upon the rock not the sand.
7
u/coolcoolcoolyo Dec 05 '16
You guys rock here at /r/Republican... and a very centrist person it's so satisfying to see a subreddit which strives to maintain integrity, not an agenda.
3
1
Dec 06 '16
Peer reviews are hardly a rock. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/11/the_peer_review_problem.html
1
u/The_seph_i_am Centrist Republican Dec 06 '16
In the field of global warming/climate change, the package of leaked Emails known as Climategate (2009) revealed extensive manipulation and deception in the peer review process. That was laid out very explicitly in American Thinker most of a decade ago. Climategate also revealed numerous other ways in which the peer review system was corrupted.
Paraphrasing Winston Churchill: peer-review is the worst system for assuring scientific quality except for every other system that has ever been tried.
Nothing is infallible, I freely admit it. Especially when it comes to the subject of climate change. So much of the water has been muddled it's very hard to figure out what the truth is. Opinion and fact have grey lines in politics and it's sadly the best we got.
6
3
u/saillc Dec 06 '16
Critical thinking is nonexistent in todays America for the majority of people, they let the media and pundits do their critical thinking for them then parrot whatever they hear.
6
u/lawblogz Dec 03 '16
Seriously? You guys allow all kinds of content to be posted on here. Maybe remove suspicious links to questionable news sites. For example, CNN may be annoying but they are a legitimate news agency, pinknews.com or talkingpointsmemo.com, not so much.
6
u/The_seph_i_am Centrist Republican Dec 03 '16
Even "ligitimate" news networks distort truth for their own gain.
We had considered creating a ban list of websites but realized all that does is close us off from points of view that could be ligitamate news. We realized that it is very difficult to say who is "ligitimate" and who isn't these days. Thus, we came to the conclusion that the only way to really stop fake news is to look at each article on an individual basis. But since we don't want to go all r/politicaldiscussion and have to review every single article for content and accuracy, we had to do the next best thing, which is relying on reddit's hive mind.
we are extremely uncomfortable with the idea that we could be led around so easily by people whose only interest is to troll various political identities.
5
u/lawblogz Dec 03 '16 edited Dec 03 '16
That's a very reasonable response, however people are malicious. Often times people or scammers like to use clickbaity titles that are salacious or totally false to get people to click on their link. Next thing you know, you've got a virus and the scammer has your address and all kinds of personal information about you. They can even get in to your email accounts.
I learned a couple years ago that with Reddit, if the news is accurate or its a big story then multiple news outlets (who I trust) will also be running it. If it's a freelance reporter then their stories usually get picked up one of these news outlets. Wordpress pages or sites hosted on personal servers are not trustworthy.
I stopped reading certain sites like slate, salon, talkingpointsmemo.com long ago because their reporting was usually inaccurate and they seemed more interested in getting certain groups of people to click on their links, plus they spam all over Reddit. That's not what legitimate news agencies do, that's what scammers do.
2
u/The_seph_i_am Centrist Republican Dec 03 '16
It's a constant fear of mine. Is today the day that someone post a Trojan on the sub? I'm hoping this new rule helps limit that too.
4
u/lawblogz Dec 03 '16 edited Dec 03 '16
Well, shit in one hand and wish in the other, see which one fills up first. It's already happened. Reddit was nothing but fake news for quite a while and if you have clicked on ever article for every random website posted on this sub I guarantee you have some sort of malware, you're web activity is being spied on, or your personal information is in the possession of some internet ne'er-do-well.
You might want to learn how to run a traceroute from your CMD screen. If you type in CMD into the search bar of your OS and then run the CMD program you can perform very basic networking security checks on your system. Make sure you are running it as the Administrator.
Try these following commands:
arp -a arp -d *
net
netstat -ano netstat -f
ipconfig /all
ping -a (you type in the target IP address here)
tracert (type in a domain name like Google.com or an IP address here, this can show you all the different addresses you are going through before you reach Google.com...)
pathping (similar to traceroute)
You can also type in arp ? or netstat ? or ipconfig /? for more information on these commands and what other command options are available. Research what the commands I typed above mean.
Learn what a DNS, a subnet and a netmask is and what yours should be. Learn how to properly set up your firewall and how to block certain unwanted connections, like multicast connections from remote third parties.
Welcome to the wonderful world of information security. Good luck!
2
u/Mentioned_Videos Dec 03 '16
Videos in this thread:
| VIDEO | COMMENT |
|---|---|
| (1) Is Science Reliable? (2) Scientific Studies: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) | 1 - Is there a peer reviewed cited science journal regarding the matter? I find this video pretty good at helping people determine what to look for regarding science discoveries. Hell even John Oliver did a video on it. Which is why we ask our subscri... |
| This Video Will Make You Angry | 1 - Left wing has the same kind of crap Trump is a racist, republicans want to kill all environmental protection laws, all guns are evil and should only be used by law enforcement, white people are automatically racist says random black person we found... |
I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can.
1
1
u/ShelbyvilleManhattan Dec 02 '16
An article written for the express purpose of spreading disinformation to support a narrative and whose key points are wholely and completely founded on fiction. Disinformation is information that sounds to be true because it fits a specific bias but isn't in the slightest.
How does one show that the purpose is to spread disinformation? If it does not appear to be an attempt at parody or satire or some other form of humor, and it should be clear to anyone who takes a serious look that it is founded on fiction, can intent to spread disinformation be inferred?
Some of the more effective fake news sites weren't created to spread disinformation to support a narrative. They were created to attract traffic to show ads to, and generated the fake news that they found got them the most ad revenue. This is probably as or more harmful than fake news that is created to push a particular narrative.
Are articles based on things that are against the overwhelming scientific consensus considered to be founded on fiction?
2
u/DogfaceDino Friedman Conservative Dec 06 '16 edited Dec 06 '16
Are articles based on things that are against the overwhelming scientific consensus considered to be founded on fiction?
I would argue that is not necessarily the case. If they are reporting on the findings of a scientist or drawing conclusions from research, it can be a legitimate article. The key part, I think, is citing sources and actually reporting on something, instead of pulling arguments out of their asses.
Please take these hypothetical headlines as examples:
MSNBC created the global warming HOAX and conspired with Obama to drive Anti American Policies
That would be fake news.
Cambridge Scientist Discovers Evidence that Draws Climate Change Consensus into Question
That could be real news.
-11
u/defyccc Dec 02 '16 edited Dec 02 '16
Also, the original "fake news" story was a hoax. A leftist journalist, political science graduate, wrote fake news. Some republicans and conservatives believed them. These are the facts.
But there is nothing new in that. The leftist journalists have been writing and broadcasting fake news for decades, and majority of people believed them. This is how we have got Obama in White House.
BTW, before Disinfomedia, there was Disinfopedia, later renamed SourceWatch. It is openly owned and operated by the "mainstream left" Center for Media and Democracy. Publishing fake news and smear against moderates and conservatives is all it does.
11
u/Clay_Statue Dec 03 '16
Jade Helm, FEMA concentration camps, Sharia Law, Death Panels, Obama wants to destroy America, etc, etc....
All this crap comes from "fake news" sources and when none of it actually happens nobody bothers to reflect upon the fact that they've been lied to.
Let's not pretend that every single right-wing news source is completely legit and above board when there are so many provable examples of total bullshit being spread around.
2
u/The_seph_i_am Centrist Republican Dec 03 '16
Left wing has the same kind of crap
Trump is a racist, republicans want to kill all environmental protection laws, all guns are evil and should only be used by law enforcement, white people are automatically racist says random black person we found on the street
It's all thought germs. And frankly we're sick of it. If these media outlets won't police themselves, we as the customers and consumers of their ads must. We have to say, nah you won't get me this time.
6
u/wrghyjtukiulihgfd Dec 03 '16 edited Dec 03 '16
/u/Clay_Statue gave some examples that were objectively false.
But the examples you gave had a lot of gray. The guns are bad isn't an objectively false statement. It's a political view point just as much as abortion is murder.
But this one peaked my interest:
Trump is a racist
Is someone a racist only when they say something explicitly racist: IE: I want this country to be only this one race.
Is someone racist when they do something has racist elements to it. IE A poll tax or Literacy test.
I'm genuinely wondering where this sub allows for specifying something or someone as racist.
edit:
An example: federal government sued Donald Trump for housing discrimination
In 1973, Trump, as a 27-year-old, was president of his father’s realty company, Trump Management.
...
The complaint alleged that the Trumps violated the Fair Housing Act, part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, by discriminating against tenants and potential tenants based on their race.
...
In one instance, a black man asked about two-bedroom apartments at Trump’s Westminster complex in Brooklyn on March 18, 1972, and a superintendent told him nothing was available. On March 19, 1972, the black man’s wife, who was white, visited the complex and was offered an application for a two-bedroom apartment on the spot.
Would the sub allow this to be called racist behavior?
2
u/The_seph_i_am Centrist Republican Dec 03 '16 edited Dec 03 '16
That's the weird thing about lies. Some are mixed with truth and some are truths just given different forms.
For instance do you know if they succeed in the law suit?
Secondly do you think that's his stance or the stance of the landlord?
Do you think that trump is now a racist?
Sourced works are what we're trying to get to. But beyond that we want people to look past the story and try to ask questions and think critically.
Your response is the correct ones to my statements.
7
u/wrghyjtukiulihgfd Dec 03 '16 edited Dec 03 '16
For instance do you know if they succeed in the law suit?
Lawsuit was settled. But IMO you aren't only racist after a jury trial. In that case I can't call O.J. Simpson a murder. There is ample evidence. Settling a lawsuit doesn't absolve you of what you were accused.
Secondly do you think that's his stance or the stance of the landlord?
http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0044.pdf
This is the evidence that the government had. Starting on page 33 there is example after example at different building and landlords. They are all the same story. Black tries to rent and is told no, Next day a white tries to rent and is told yes.
Page 38 has this line:
During the summer of 1960, Harriette Bolling, black, (77-79 Columbia Street, New York, New York) was told by the rental agent at the Shorehaven Apartments that she could not rent an apartment at that complex because blacks were not being admitted.
On page 40:
[Two Trump Rental Agents were instructed] to rent only to "Jews and Executives" and discouraged rental to blacks.
page 162: Even the doorman tells a black woman there are no apartments. Later the superindendent comfirmed this. The next day a white woman talked to doorman and there was an apartment available and the superindendent showed her the apartment.
page 169:
Mr. Peter Connan, a former employee of defendants, was superintendent in late 1972 and early 1973 at the Westminster Apartments, then a virtually all-white building, after the death of his father, the previous superintendent. He advised that the Trump office staff, including Minerva Gilbert, wanted to know the race of the applicants whose applications were submitted to the central office, and that this information was provided. On one occasion he overheard Mrs. Gilbert tell the superintendent of another building, identity unknown, that he should have told a black applicant that there were no vacancies, instead of forwarding his application. Mr. Connan advised that his father, while superintendent, kept a sham lease and check to be shown to black applicants.
There is a pattern here. Trump was head of this company. It doesn't seem to be one rogue landlord as you put out. The landlords of all teh building wouldn't rent to black. The head office requested that all applications be marked with 'C' or '9'. It was at the top. Now does this complaint have Trump directly saying "Don't rent to blacks" as heard by 5 sworn witnesses who were all members of the clergy? No. (It did quote his father Fred Trump as saying that). But if he said that the company would be opperating like the complaint says.
So like I said before with a Poll Tax or Literacy Test. At what point does someone take actions that are racist where you can call them a racist?
Do you think that trump is now a racist?
My other point before.
Is someone a racist only when they say something explicitly racist
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/paul-ryan-trump-judge-223991
Not my opinion but that of Paul Ryan that Trump said something racist. If someone says something racist, can we label as a racist?
Personally I think he has engaged in actions that are racist.
He has said things that are racist.
He has proposed policies that have white nationalist tones (Transcript:
The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals:
· To keep immigration levels, measured by population share, within historical norms
He believes in genetic superiority:
His son Donald Jr. told me: “Like him, I'm a big believer in race-horse theory. He's an incredibly accomplished guy, my mother's incredibly accomplished, she's an Olympian, so I'd like to believe genetically I'm predisposed to [be] better than average.” Source
If I can't label these racist actions as coming from someone who is racist. Then I shouldn't be allowed to call David Duke a racist either. He was never convicted in a court of law as being a racist. (David Duke: "I don't consider myself a racist")
So could I post a story here with the subject of it being that Trump is a racist. Reffering to him as such?
Sorry for the massive book I just wrote.
On a side note: The evidence was a quick thing the thumb through.
Page 50: Trumps Lawyer starts a letter with:
I never knew you were such a hot-tempered white female!
You don't see lawyers writing letters like that anymore. lol
6
u/The_seph_i_am Centrist Republican Dec 02 '16
But seriously, can you give source to your claim? Per the new rules
2
Dec 06 '16
This, a thousand times this. The wikileaks revealed that ALL of the news written in the mainstream media was pure propaganda, with the Hillary Clinton approving articles before publishing and the media burying stories that she doesn't like.
There is fake news out there, and it's CNN / MSNBC / NYT / WaPo and pretty much all the ones the liberals love to trumpet.
If they predicted a Trump loss, they're probably fake news.
3
u/The_seph_i_am Centrist Republican Dec 02 '16
The part that cracks me up about it is when asked why they barely give a real answer beyond just to see if they could.
-14
u/defyccc Dec 02 '16 edited Dec 02 '16
Leftstream media complaining about fake news is hilarious! For example, The Guardian has been a purveyor of fake news for at least five years.
41
u/[deleted] Dec 02 '16
I just wish people had a better understanding of how to determine for themselves the credibility of something they are reading (hint: it has nothing to do with whether what you're reading makes you feel good or confirms your opinion). But it's pretty clear that is a reading skill that was lost along the way.