You are making up an alternative meaning for the phrase fake news.
Nah. It's well understood at this point to mean, "People using widely consumed platforms to spread information they know is incorrect, and doing so while presenting those lies as facts." So, when someone on CNN says there is a "Muslim ban," they know they're lying and that they're producing and spreading fake news. You know they are, their informed audience knows it's fake, and some small number of non-critical-thinking dolts take it as fact. But it's fake news. Click-bait factories in Eastern Europe are NOT the only or even a predominant source of this. Most of it comes right out of mainstream media habitats right in the US.
It is the easiest way to make money there.
It's true. When an operation like MSNBC spends an entire news cycle hyping the fact that their head fake-news-talking-head is going to "release Trump's taxes," when they know perfectly well they have no such thing and will do no such thing (except a readily available snipped that - even by itself - undermines their own narrative)
Efforts to identify and remove fake news have no political intent
Good stuff! Do you read Greek or are you only able to parse English translations?
Also, are you actually concerned with what the book says, or are you "coming from" a certain viewpoint and looking for something that matches that?
I had hoped for a better response. I see you have nothing to give in return except for your anger and blame.
If I am clueless it was in thinking that there might be some underlying substance or merit to your position. Thank you for so effectively giving me a clue.
In other news Barack Obama will be paid $400K for one speech. Which is what his annual salary used to be, while in office.
I wonder, who was more ruinous to the enterprise they were charged with running...
I can't believe, this is happening without the FCC or a similar government organization mandating it — driven simply by the KKKorporate greed and the fear of competition...
Deporting people who are not citizens is required if they are not properly authorized by our government to be here. This is not just for the benefit of the people who live here, but most importantly it is also for the benefit of the people who are here illegally. Also, it is the law.
If you want illegal immigrants to be legal, change the law. Until then, uphold the law.
It really is that simple, and no malice or hatred is required. Well, except on your part, as a necessity of continuing to support the exploitation of human beings by corporations, coyotes, human traffickers, and the like.
As for intolerance, I can assure you what you just wrote is incredibly intolerant. You express immense concern towards what the "right" is doing and who they are, but very little concern for the effect that illegal immigration has on the immigrants themselves and also on the citizens who are displaced by these immigrants.
What you fail to realize is that you are not talking about being tolerant of Mexicans (actually many of the illegal immigrants come from other countries) or "accepting differences." You are talking about being tolerant of illegality. You are talking about subverting the sovereignty of a nation. You are talking about weakening the security and well being of the nation. You are talking about a multitude of issues, none of which actually intersect tolerance and acceptance of differences, but you call them that because who doesn't want to be tolerant and diverse? Mis-definition as an argumentation technique is still disingenuous, no matter how well intentioned your misdirection is.
That you are content with the virtual slavery that some immigrants experience while here is particularly telling. That you express rage at the "right" is further proof that your concerns are not for the lives, health, and well being of other humans.
If you were truly concerned with these people you would be angry at both parties. You would have been screaming your head off at Obama for not taking care of the issue of amnesty during his first two years. You would have been incensed at the number of immigrants that are being used in human trafficking of sex slaves IN MEXICO before they ever get to America.
Instead you see deportation of illegal immigrants as an attempt by the "right" to "destroy America and everything it stands for." America is a Republic. A nation of laws, most of which are mutable and can be changed by the will of the people. You advocate for breaking laws, not changing them. You advocate for breaking these laws on behalf of people who aren't even American citizens. You advocate for this lawbreaking even though it takes jobs, income, and taxes from Americans that need it most.
You are the one trying to "destroy America and everything is stands for," sir. I suggest you stop demonizing people around you and start holding your own political party accountable for the laws that are currently on the books. The sooner we can get politically active people to take responsibility for the political landscape and laws that are in place, the sooner we can create a solution that ticks all of the boxes, namely protection of the US worker and citizens, security of the US border, and prevention of the exploitation of immigrants. Name calling, vituperation, blaming the "other party," and supporting lawlessness are not the American way. Electing political candidates that see a problem and create solutions is. Unfortunately, with your hatred-blow off valve running wide open and facing the opposition you can't generate enough steam to actually make a difference where it matters.
I prefer to preprogram myself when meeting someone new. I will intentionally think of at least three things I like, admire, or want to be more like myself about the person I am meeting for the first time. I try to do this before we even make eye contact.
I encourage others to try this. It has led to some amazing and beautiful interactions. Even if you go out on a limb and think something positive that might not be true, you can usually find evidence for it almost immediately.
I see it as a practical application of the Robert Anton Wilson related idea of "what the thinker thinks, the prover proves."
This verse refers to a common threat in the old world. Certain religions contemporaneous with these early writings advocated having orgies that culminated with the burning of some of the participant's children. Others would use dog pits or bear pits instead of fire. Essentially the orgies were a religious observance, and the children were killed at the culmination of days of religious observances. The sights and sounds of the burning children were reported to increase the ecstatic frenzy of the participants to incredible levels.
Some of the Biggest Economies Aren't a Big User Of Social Media
Is there a lesson here? Maybe, use of Social Media impedes the economic growth?
...where the biggest cheering was for building The Wall...
Please forgive my ignornace, but I still haven't had a coherent and rational explanation of what is wrong with defending your country's borders?
Or, said in another way, why is building a wall so wrong?
It's a sexy word and makes me want to rub one out. Probably because I have a fascination with gender politics, dominant and submissive behaviors, as well as a general female worship thing going on (not just sexual mind you, in fact that takes a back seat to other characteristics.)
England was paying for information, paying informants, paying propagandists, jailing and killing people who spoke out publicly against the Crown's control
Citations would've been most helpful here, but let's stipulate, it is all true.
So, in the 18th century Britain was already doing all of that. And in the 20th it did too — and we still regard Alan Turing's efforts as nothing but heroic and decisive in turning the war in the Allies' favor and saving thousands of lives.
Why, then, are so many folks — yourself included — denouncing Turing's descendants at CIA, NSA and their British equivalents in the 21st century? Yes, they could spy on their own citizens illegally and it, likely, does happen — including political opposition. But they do, unfortunately, have a vast number of legitimate targets and their secretive efforts continue to save lives... To sabotage all of their efforts because they could sometimes be abusive is like banning cars because some times people die in them.
It is most refreshing to have a mainstream media outlet call the "leaker" a "traitor", but, when he is found, we are likely to discover, that he was lead to these actions by the Western public's suicidal attitudes towards earlier traitors — Snowden and Manning.
"All we are given is possibilities -- to make ourselves one thing or another." -- Ortega y Gasset