Jump to content

Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?


Winstonm

Recommended Posts

Interesting unintended-consequences Post interview today with Paul Horner: Facebook fake-news writer: ‘I think Donald Trump is in the White House because of me’

 

You’ve been writing fake news for a while now — you’re kind of like the OG Facebook news hoaxer. Well, I’d call it hoaxing or fake news. You’d call it parody or satire. How is that scene different now than it was three or five years ago? Why did something like your story about Obama invalidating the election results (almost 250,000 Facebook shares, as of this writing) go so viral?

Honestly, people are definitely dumber. They just keep passing stuff around. Nobody fact-checks anything anymore — I mean, that’s how Trump got elected. He just said whatever he wanted, and people believed everything, and when the things he said turned out not to be true, people didn’t care because they’d already accepted it. It’s real scary. I’ve never seen anything like it.

 

You mentioned Trump, and you’ve probably heard the argument, or the concern, that fake news somehow helped him get elected. What do you make of that?

 

My sites were picked up by Trump supporters all the time. I think Trump is in the White House because of me. His followers don’t fact-check anything — they’ll post everything, believe anything. His campaign manager posted my story about a protester getting paid $3,500 as fact. Like, I made that up. I posted a fake ad on Craigslist.

 

Why? I mean — why would you even write that?

 

Just ’cause his supporters were under the belief that people were getting paid to protest at their rallies, and that’s just insane. I’ve gone to Trump protests — trust me, no one needs to get paid to protest Trump. I just wanted to make fun of that insane belief, but it took off. They actually believed it.

 

I thought they’d fact-check it, and it’d make them look worse. I mean that’s how this always works: Someone posts something I write, then they find out it’s false, then they look like idiots. But Trump supporters — they just keep running with it! They never fact-check anything! Now he’s in the White House. Looking back, instead of hurting the campaign, I think I helped it. And that feels [bad].

To me it seems weirdly appropriate that our con-artist president got a boost from this guy, even though he regrets it now. I understand that Facebook is changing its policy on fake news now, but Elvis has already left the building.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, people are definitely dumber. They just keep passing stuff around. Nobody fact-checks anything anymore

 

 

Interesting Post interview today with Paul Horner ...

 

To me it seems weirdly appropriate that our con-artist president got a boost from this guy, even though he regrets it now. I understand that Facebook is changing its policy on fake news now, but Elvis has already left the building.

 

I hope you did cross check that information...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This all reminds me of a lark when we were teens. I have the feeling that I already mentioned this, but it is short and you can skip it.

 

In St. Paul in the 1950s if the school system needed more money they had to put it before the voters. They did, and it failed. So they announced that since money was short they would be cutting back on football for the next fall, and then they put it up again. Probably they had already hit on the right strategy but to make sure we students had to bring stuff home that explained to parents the great importance of a yes vote. So a few of us got together and made up a Vote No flyer. We explained that property taxes would double, we explained that the so-called need for more money was all a sham and so on. Then we broke into the school, got into the office and put the copies we had made in the teacher mailboxes with a note saying that this should be distributed to the students. And so it happened. The measure was successful anyway. Cutting back on football??? Ok, so property taxes double. As long as they don't go spending the dough on Physics or English or that sort of stuff.

 

One has to take a realistic view of what will spur people to action.

 

There might be a clue to the recent election in here somewhere.

 

Added: And btw, I think it is really important to get this sort of nonsense out of your system when you are 16 or 17. For an adult to be doing ot is a bit pathetic.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you did cross check that information...

Yep.

 

National Report

 

In February 2013, National Report was registered as a site.

 

In 2014, a Facebook interface experiment included the site on a list of those whose stories were flagged as "satire" when appearing on the social network. Craig Silverman of emergent.info sees National Report as one of several websites which are "not driven by trying to do comedy or satire, but by what kind of fake stuff can we spin up to get shares that earn us money", with particularly widely spread hoax stories capable of earning thousands of dollars per day from on-site advertising.

 

Paul Horner was the publication's lead writer; his employment began shortly after National Report went online.

 

...

 

Several hoax National Report stories have been mistakenly reported as fact by media outlets.

 

A report that Arizona governor Jan Brewer intended to introduce mandatory gay-to-straight conversion courses into the state's public school system. A spokesman for the governor called the fake article 'vile' and said 'its authors should be ashamed.' Brewer has been a target of gay rights activists because of her efforts to strip same-sex partners of government benefits, and for her stance on making it harder for gay couples to adopt children.

 

One article, at the time of the closure of some US monuments including the World War II memorial in Washington, DC, during a budget dispute, fooled researchers at Fox News Channel into reporting that the President had announced his intention to spend his own money to keep a Muslim museum open during a government shutdown.

Making money by conning people is clearly a business model that Trump likes, pathetic or not. But Horner got more than he bargained for this time...

B-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Existing of hoax news site is not a question.

 

I mean did you crosscheck the claim that fake news site actually played serious role in the election a favor of Trump:

My sites were picked up by Trump supporters all the time. I think Trump is in the White House because of me.

 

It is always nice to think that people who do not agree with you are idiots who cannot understand simple things. Usually it is not the case.

 

I have many friends who are living in Russia. Some of them are really smart people. Smarter then me. They also very ethical people. They are Putin supporters. Go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Existing of hoax news site is not a question.

 

I mean did you crosscheck the claim that fake news site actually played serious role in the election a favor of Trump:

That was Paul Horner's opinion. Everyone votes according to his or her own opinions. I don't have any way of knowing whether those fake news articles swung the election or not.

 

I do see that the Trump campaign tweeted fake news links to their supporters, so I suppose they intended those links to rake in some votes. For example, Lewandowski sent out the fake information about paying $3,500 to Trump protesters, and it is hard to imagine that he is stupid enough to believe that was true when he sent it. To me, that indicates the sorts of voters that he was trying to lure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is one possibility: For the most part, peple that believed the fake news stories were already inclined to support Trump. But the deciding factor in the election may have been that the Trump supporters really got themselves worked up and voted in droves. Sort of like cheerleading, I guess. Supporters are supporters, voters are voters, and they are not always the same thing.

 

It's a bit frightening to think about what really swings elections, no matter which side you support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have many friends who are living in Russia. Some of them are really smart people. Smarter then me. They also very ethical people. They are Putin supporters. Go figure.

A very smart, very ethical Russian that I've know for a long time has told me more than once that the Ukraine historically belongs to Russia and that the division was artificially established by the Soviet Union. If that view is widely held, I suppose it would account for some of Putin's support. (She does agree that the purchase of Alaska was legitimate.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you who live in the US, maybe calling your Senators and House of Congress Rep is a better use of time than posting in this thread?

Ask your senators not to confirm unqualified Trump crownies. Here are some of the stakes:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/17/13626514/trump-systemic-corruption

I'm in the habit of doing that, but first I need to see who the nominees actually are. If Romney gets Secretary of State, it's probably the best I could hope for.

 

Meanwhile, Trump will clearly change the tone in Washington: Civil servants befuddled by Trump's casual invitation to May

 

Downing Street refused to deny a leaked transcript in which the president-elect told the British prime minister: “If you travel to the US you should let me know.”

I'm sure she will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all too much. I suppose the invitation (to stretch the meaning of the word) might have been as stated. If so, I cannot imagine anyone is confused or befuddled, except in the sense of British understatement. I apologize to the people of Great Britain and express my embarrassment that we could have elected a total fool as president.

 

We can hope that this item is another of these fake news stories. If it is true, incomprehensibly rude only begins to describe it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Won't help. She's very knowledgeable about the history of the region, and I've heard her argue about that history with a Ukrainian woman. This is not really my area, but the thrust of it is that the history of the last thousand years or so is of people taking land (or trying to) that belongs to Russia. It reminds me a lot of how people talk about the Middle East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in the habit of doing that, but first I need to see who the nominees actually are. If Romney gets Secretary of State, it's probably the best I could hope for.

I suppose Sessions as AG and Flynn as National Security Advisor might be worth a call?

 

Besides their lack of qualification, it is worrying that being a big Trump supporter seems the main criterion for appointments so far. That sends a clear message throughout the ranks.

 

Charged with deciding whether to allow the AT&T merger with Time Warner? If Trump is lashing out at CNN for their biased coverage, it sure seems wise to take a sceptical approach if you are hoping for further career advancement within the Trump administration. That's another little step towards a Putin-style regime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well in a way the article supports here in that these were the lands of the Kievan Rus and Russians, amongst others, claim them as their ancestors. So you could say that these lands are "Russian", sort of. The article also confirms that aside from this period the Ukraine was never wholly Russian until the Soviet Union. So back to the Kievan Rus, following the link for them is also interesting because it reveals that there is an academic controversy surrounding their origin, with the main theory being that their ruling class was Scandinavian and underclass Slavic. So perhaps that rather dulls the idea of these lands genuinely being Russian.

 

Even if that were not the case, it is, as you will know, dangerous to take a specific point in history as the definitive ownership. As an Englishman, I might decide that the 1900s ought to be the definitive timeframe and claim half the globe for example. Or go back even further and claim America. And if you take the earliest civilisations as your base then many cultures would need to be radically altered. The more generally held view is that the people inhabiting a region have the rights rather than a larger and more powerful neighbouring country that once held sway there.

 

And I am fairly sure Russians understand this concept just as well as we do, they just choose to ignore it on occasion and this happens to be part of their negotiating/arguing technique culturally, so you have to take some of it with a pinch of salt and accept it for what it is. If you cede such points that is (again culturally) taken as a sign of weakness. In any case, neither we nor she is likely to solve the issue any time soon so it is all rather moot.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose Sessions as AG and Flynn as National Security Advisor might be worth a call?

 

Besides their lack of qualification, it is worrying that being a big Trump supporter seems the main criterion for appointments so far. That sends a clear message throughout the ranks.

 

Charged with deciding whether to allow the AT&T merger with Time Warner? If Trump is lashing out at CNN for their biased coverage, it sure seems wise to take a sceptical approach if you are hoping for further career advancement within the Trump administration. That's another little step towards a Putin-style regime.

I don't think that the Senate has a say in the Flynn appointment. Sessions is another matter and I'm going to refresh myself on the history of the racism charges. Terrible omen for the Justice Department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along the lines of fake news, there's Trump's association with a guy who combines radio evangelist and Rush Limbaugh: How Alex Jones, conspiracy theorist extraordinaire, got Donald Trump’s ear

 

“I think Alex Jones may be the single most important voice in the alternative conservative media,” says Roger Stone, the Nixon-era political trickster who orchestrated Trump’s appearance on the show.

 

On Monday, Trump seemed to confirm Jones’s status. Jones says Trump called to promise he would return to the program to thank the Infowars audience, an extraordinary gesture for an incoming president whose schedule is packed with calls from world leaders and the enormous task of overseeing the transition. The president-elect’s team hasn’t confirmed that the conversation took place.

 

Stone, who takes credit for persuading Jones to support Trump, envisions the Web impresario as a potent force during the new administration, a bridge between the presidency and a restless, skeptical slice of the population. “He’s a valuable asset — somebody has to rally the people around President Trump’s legislative program,” Stone says.

 

...

 

In his films, as well as his hours-long radio and Web broadcasts, Jones frequently returns to his core theme of the threat posed by shadowy, malevolent, elite “globalists” bent on worldwide domination.

 

The United Nations, he claims, intends to release plagues that will kill off 80 percent of the people in the world. The remaining population, he says, will be herded into crowded cities where they will be enslaved by the elite, turning the Earth into a “prison planet.” A smaller population would mean the elite would have less competition for mysterious “life extension technologies.”

 

The recurrent message is that these powerful interests foment insecurity to then foist policy changes on an addled public. Hence, the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, in Jones’s telling, was confected to thrust gun control on America.

 

“Sandy Hook is a completely fake, with actors, in my view, manufactured. I couldn’t believe it at first,” Jones said on one program. “I know they had actors there clearly. But I thought they killed some real kids.”

 

Other tragedies, such as the Boston Marathon bombing, he says, were “false flags” employing CIA-manipulated dupes who take the blame. The raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound was faked because the terrorist leader was a CIA asset. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was behind the Oklahoma City federal building bombing. It goes on. And on. And on.

I have to believe that Trump cynically uses this guy to elicit support from "the poorly educated." That would align exactly with the reasons he gave to the Romney campaign when advising them to endorse the Obama birther movement.

 

If Trump actually believes any of this it's even worse. Not good either way. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, racism is a broad term and not all racists act or think the same way. Imo, and others will no doubt differ, you are a racist if any of your opinions of or behaviours towards people are influenced by the race of such people.

Emphasis mine.

 

Kaitlyn, it's also worth noting that by Mike's own definition, he is a racist. I'm confident that he favors discriminating against whites in hiring or in university applications. I'm confident that he supports racially/religiously polarizing organizations like La Raza & Black Lives Matter & the Muslim Brotherhood. I'm confident that he hasn't spent a minute of his life advocating for more 'diversity' in China, or in Africa, or in India, or in Japan, or in Israel, or in Vietnam, or in Afghanistan, or in Bangladesh, or in South Korea.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGJVX6jYjI0

 

If you use the exact same rhetoric as they use, but substitute "White" for "Latino" or "Black" or "Muslim", he will call you a racist. Here's an interesting NSFW article discussing that phenomenon on Twitter.

 

Remember, when they go low, we go high.

 

CxodbPdXEAAbhup.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, when they go low, we go high.
I think I have taken the high road and will attempt to continue to do that by making no assumptions about the other posters. While demographics support your guess about Mike's anti-white racism, he may be an exception. We are no better than they are if we call them racists without proof.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I have taken the high road and will attempt to continue to do that by making no assumptions about the other posters. While demographics support your guess about Mike's anti-white racism, he may be an exception. We are no better than they are if we call them racists without proof.

Just to be clear, I am NOT calling Mike a racist. I am saying that Mike, if he were being intellectually honest and consistent, would call HIMSELF a racist. :P

 

Here's what to do to them when they hit you in the back:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KPWmXgPOn8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...