ADVERTISEMENT

Twitter, FB mass (fake news) purge is gearing up.

MegaPoke

MegaPoke

Moderator
Moderator
May 29, 2001
58,299
56,117
113
54
Tulsa
www.shipmanphotos.com
The story floated recently is that social media giants need to tighten up the news circulated and filter out the 'fake news' elements - which you would assume are the stupid click bait "stories" with ridiculous or misleading headlines.

Well, it's about more than that. It's about silencing the so called alt-right, which destroyed the MSM in this last election cycle.



Breitbart, The Blaze and InfoWars are on the list of fake news sources being published - along with The Onion and other satire sites. Slanted? Obviously, but there is no mention of Huffington Post, Mother Jones or Slate or any of a dozen other such often cited liberal news and analysis sources.

600


And right on time, Paul Joseph Watson has another brilliant video addressing this nonsense.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Tulsaaggieson, PepeDeFrog29 and GunsOfFrankEaton
I don't like using the word "scary," but this is literally scary stuff.

Nothing but blatant thought control.

@MegaPoke did the news you read list methodologies for news sources to legitimize themselves?

If not, yes, Facebook is going to chip away at their market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
I love it, these social media companies are plotting their own demise.

If they think there won't be alternate sites with the content people want they are living in another universe.

Just look at the growth of Breitbart and InfoWars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
ThePokewithNoName said:
That's a good way to get the hackers at Anonymous to take down their site.
Click to expand...
The "hackers at Anonymous" spend their days probing these companies anyway. There is nothing Google, Twitter, Facebook, et al could do to increase their value as a target for the state actors, hacktivists, script kiddies et al.

Know that these platforms have a vested interest in promoting credible content - that the "fake news" problem is an economic problem and as such, they will take steps to protect the quality and value of the content they curate.

This may be inconvenient for "alt-right" types, but Molyneux takes himself much too seriously when he claims it is because of some threat he and his ilk pose to traditional media or anyone else for that matter.
 
Last edited:
Headhunter said:
I love it, these social media companies are plotting their own demise.

If they think there won't be alternate sites with the content people want they are living in another universe.

Just look at the growth of Breitbart and InfoWars.
Click to expand...
You get that Facebook doesn't provide ANY content right? They provide a platform for user curated content, and an advertising engine to promote content from third parties. Breitbart and InfoWars NEED Facebook. Facebook can give two shits about them unless or until their checks start bouncing. If these guys decide to buy ads somewhere else, there will be 4 or 5 other buyers for those eyeballs...
 
davidallen said:
You get that Facebook doesn't provide ANY content right?
Click to expand...
Then I started reading this post and had to quit. I think you know why. Funny as hell though. You must be drinking the Pinot from ripe grapes tonight.
 
davidallen said:
The "hackers at Anonymous" spend their days probing these companies anyway. There is nothing Google, Twitter, Facebook, et al could do to increase their value as a target for the state actors, hacktivists, script kiddies et al.

Know that these platforms have a vested interest in providing credible content - that the "fake news" problem is an economic problem and as such, they will take steps to protect the quality and value of the content they curate.

This may be inconvenient for "alt-right" types, but Molyneux takes himself much too seriously when he claims it is because of some threat he and his ilk pose to traditional media or anyone else for that matter.
Click to expand...

Several on their list of fake news sites include conservative sources like dailywire and breitbart. Interestingly, no Huffington Post, Slate.com, among others.

These platforms have a vested interest, all right. A vested interest in promoting liberal propaganda from "legit" sources like CNN.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rulz, CBradSmith and GunsOfFrankEaton
davidallen said:
If/when ads are perceived to be nothing but click bait and BS, the value of those ads diminishes. Credible content is content that doesn't immediately piss off the consumer. That clear enough?
Click to expand...

Like CNN for instance? Or ESPN's new liberal political propaganda?

CNN has been proven to be in collusion with the Clinton campaign (as well as several other MSM sources).

Both piss me off to no end when they spew liberal misinformation and falsehoods.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: imprimis and GunsOfFrankEaton
DA, yes ire right they don't publish content but you realize that those ad buys have a justifiable ROI dependent upon sharing, right? They aren't paying for that. Additionally CTR is another factor that plays into it. Those catchy title you just can't resist are based on math and math alone. There are programs for A/B testing titles and images and these big content companies have it down to a science. FB promotes what works. That content was effective, right or wrong and FB's algorithm ate it up!

What has happened is people have been smart enough to monetize aka take advantage of the emotions of this election.

Even individuals are earning serious full time incomes regurgitating these types of click bait content, leveraging loyal hard core left and right readers.

Election over. ROI no longer what it was. Sites will slowly die.

New election comes around, new sites will pop up. Rinse and repeat.

Buzzfeed type sites and others like them that are less well managed are the ones that honestly need to be purged.

FB has no interest in removing those types of sites simply because people are too dumb to know the difference. (Me included on occasion.)

This type of purge will happen for one of two reasons. People get fed up with being tricked and usage of the platform drops, or it becomes an opportunity to stifle dissenting opinion.

[URL='Kim Kardashian ordered McDonald's wearing a tube top and you won't believe what happened next
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
shortbus said:
This type of purge will happen for one of two reasons. People get fed up with being tricked and usage of the platform drops, or it becomes an opportunity to stifle dissenting opinion.
Click to expand...
The former is the reason that matters...

Agree with pretty much everything but that last bit of your conclusion.
 
davidallen said:
Credible content is content that doesn't immediately piss off the consumer.
Click to expand...

Hence the reason conservative sites are being targeted as "non-credible." It completely violates the echo chambers known as safe spaces today's liberals prefer. Their tolerance is of such a high standard that the mere mention of another point of view immediately pisses them off and is therefore non-credible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imprimis, AC_Exotic and GunsOfFrankEaton
MegaPoke said:
View embedded media
Click to expand...

Damn.

But then again, after the election I took myself off of Twitter as well.

But if there were a merchant that provided the free flow of content that I would like to gain access to, which would include people like Woods, Molyneux, McInness, Breitbart, Etc, I would be inclined to be a purchaser of their service.

The understanding of content integrity and desirability isn't f'ing rocket science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
ThePokewithNoName said:
Like CNN for instance? Or ESPN's new liberal political propaganda?

CNN has been proven to be in collusion with the Clinton campaign (as well as several other MSM sources).

Both piss me off to no end when they spew liberal misinformation and falsehoods.
Click to expand...
Ergo, they too are non-credible news sites since you admit to being pissed off and I assume are a consumer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AC_Exotic
David Allen is mostly correct.

However, they've all been busted for down-voting conservative news stories. Denying this is pretty echo chamber-y wino. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBradSmith
Adverpoke said:
David Allen is mostly correct.

However, they've all been busted for down-voting conservative news stories. Denying this is pretty echo chamber-y wino. ;)
Click to expand...

Mostly correct only if he is comfortable acknowledging that FB, Twitter, etc are calculating the cost of keeping one segment of the market over the other, and that if enough accommodations aren't afforded the "neglected" segment, there's an avenue for the entry of a competitor.

Lastly, the browbeating people on this board for seemingly not comprehending the very thing a third grader comprehends when given the choice between chocolate milk and plain milk, is, in fact, completely idiotic. The people who give those types of lectures, what planet are they from?
 
Adverpoke said:
David Allen is mostly correct.

However, they've all been busted for down-voting conservative news stories. Denying this is pretty echo chamber-y wino. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm interested in your take as a hip advertising guy, but it seems to me that the establishment social media is just making the alt right seem even more edgy and dangerous (aka attractive) by trying to censor and minimize it even after it's tremendous impact on the recent election.

Somewhere along the way, progressivism became the boring parents and the alt right is the leather jacket Mohawk haircut punk rock kid burning cigarettes at the underground music club. Which is funny because they are mostly nerds.

Is this not simply going to give the alt right even more credibility - given the fact that the REAL news has been depantsed and is more mistrusted than congress?

I say yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD, AC_Exotic, Medic007 and 1 other person
CBradSmith said:
Damn.

But then again, after the election I took myself off of Twitter as well.

But if there were a merchant that provided the free flow of content that I would like to gain access to, which would include people like Woods, Molyneux, McInness, Breitbart, Etc, I would be inclined to be a purchaser of their service.

The understanding of content integrity and desirability isn't f'ing rocket science.
Click to expand...
Get Feedly and curate your own feeds. Don't give anyone else control. (or money)
 
And people wonder why the outrageous rumor of the New World Order continues to exist. A unity world government controlled by the globalist elites making decisions for all of us peons who are too stupid to take care of ourselves is very desired by the billionaire class.
 
1. Interesting that the misinformation isn't what bothers conservatives. Its the fact that private enterprise might censor falsehoods that is objectionable. Not one peep criticizing deception or trying to stop it - the criticism is against the people that want to prevent deception.

2. Elections have consequences. This is true. But having the energy, creativity and verve to set up a wildly successful social media platform do too. Maybe a conservative somewhere could create a disruptive influence like twitter or facebook and then they can run it the way the want to?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD and davidallen
The first step was to give control to an organization that will carry out the mission. Done.

In a few years we will be adopting similar technology to the Chinese dissidents use to get around their government's filters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shortbus
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back