Facts, fact checking, fake news and search results
After I had read:
“Facts” now obliterated by Google with insanely biased “fact checking” run by liberal smear sites Salon and Buzzfeed
http://newstarget.com/2017-04-20-facts-now-obliterated-by-google-with-insanely-biased-fact-checking-run-by-liberal-smear-sites-salon-and-buzzfeed.html
I wanted to check some facts and thought it would be interesting to measure DuckDuckGo against almighty Google:
No Google has surely not been the only one, I haven't been on Facebook (which I like to call Fakebook) for years so I was not surprised reading this:
“WE’RE AT THE MERCY OF THE ALGOS”; MORE NEWS SITES SAY FACEBOOK’S ‘FAKE NEWS’ FILTER IS KILLING TRAFFIC
It seems as though the first confirmed victim of Facebook's 'fake news' crusade may be none other than the Chicago Tribune
https://www.infowars.com/were-at-the-mercy-of-the-algos-more-news-sites-say-facebooks-fake-news-filter-is-killing-traffic/
But according to Wikipedia:
List of fake news websites
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fake_news_websites
Natural News and InfoWars are fake news of course! (am I glad I had read great articles on Natural News way before!)
Now you know something has some truth in it when you start to see the big guns coming out of hiding, like if there is another Wikileak, the last drop in the bucket, implicating among others the CIA (who once helped establish the Washington Post)
REPORT: DOJ PREPARES CHARGES AGAINST WIKILEAKS, ASSANGE
Charges could include theft of government property, conspiracy or violations of the Espionage Act
https://www.infowars.com/report-doj-prepares-charges-against-wikileaks-assange/
But don't believe my sources, they are after all, officially, fake news ;)
Did you ever think about that if there is a website that it obviously very biased and where everyone else agrees is not telling the truth... that maybe that website indeed is not telling the truth?
Especially if they continue to beat a point that is completely irrelevant, like the Uranium one. It does not make any difference on the world destroying potential, its 1000s of times on both sides, if 20% changed sides or not.
For the same reason it does not make any sense to sell the stuff, so maybe it indeed did not happen? Why would Putin pay a lot of money for something he has more then he needs and is a pain in the ass to store?
Also how did they hide it?
Wikipedia
I mean normally that stuff is carried this way, accompanied with thousands of people protesting:
so how did they hide dozens of those trains?
My post was obviously not about uranium but it happens to be a controversial topic. It would make more sense if you would backup your claims with credible sources like I did.
You mean this one?
Ah I already had the feeling your source was distorted ;)
Nice one :D
But seriously, regarding the uranium, I have no idea but I do find it odd what you are saying.
Which website where you refering too in the 1st paragraph?
Why indeed Hillary got it to Putin? You say it didn't happen?
Did you hear about Galen Winsor, the nuclear power scare scam? You are from Germany, you will love this since the Germans think they are so smart with their clean power and it is all a hoax, even climate change by CO2 is a hoax. I could write an article about it but first I wonder how much steem I could earn, it is a lot of work!