Why MIT's Orwellian "Largest-Ever Study of Fake News" Is Nonsense.
As with almost every other day in the last few weeks, yet another piece of 'evidence' is provided that justifies the creation of a global 'Ministry of Truth' who will set forth the truth for us all so that we don't waste our time thinking for ourselves and running the risk of being mistaken. The latest study analysed the entire history of Twitter to determine 'facts' about 'fake news' - let's explore...
As The Atlantic just reported, a new study claims to have proven that fake news is a massive problem, spreads faster than 'real news' and therefore, presumably, 'we must act' to resolve the problem. As someone who has a long history of using, working with and designing social networks, plus as someone who has learned the hard way, both through academic study and lived experience, that 'voices of authority' are no more likely to be honest than any other voice - I understandably have a lot to say on this.
Real Background
We only need to examine the way that prominent Youtubers have been deleted from Youtube recently for their opinions and thoughts (sometimes including channels with millions of followers and thousands of videos) to know that there are significant entities involved here who want to shut down dissenting voices. If we examine some of those big names who have been ejected, it turns out that they typically don't actually have a common thread in terms of their 'political position', except perhaps to say that they have no problem calling out the mainstream media as being biased and deceptive - plus commonly also identifying (possibly through the scientific method) areas in which the mainstream narrative is criminally incorrect. In other words, some criminals have enough power to attempt to protect themselves by using governments and corporations to do so!! Shock, horror! I know - who would ever have thought that criminals could get into government and corporations?! I mean, I know that the entire human story contains numerous examples of genocides and massive crimes against humanity carried out through the vehicle of government and corporate machinery, but.. Oh.. well.. I guess there is a small chance that this is happening now..
You can review some of my recent posts on Steemit that demonstrate how I have been recently censored on Facebook (with video evidence), plus how radio/chat show host Richie Allen had his account deleted from Youtube recently, plus how Google received a massive fine for criminally delisting competitors (including my own social network at ureka.org). The EU commission upheld that Google was in the wrong, yet it was very difficult to demonstrate this and it took years. Unfortunately, the likes of Richie Allen and myself typically don't have the resources to fight google for years in court. (I have even encountered similar attempts at suppressing dissent from Steemit's own technical manager 'Sneak' - despite me providing scientifically valid data to back up my position).
This New Study
I am not going to go through all the points made in the piece in 'The Atlantic' as there is really no need. Why?
Despite the claims of analysis of massive amounts of data, the study is fundamentally flawed in a truly Orwellian way. While the study claims to be analysing 'fake news' and how it affects us, there is a problem - in order to do this they have to know what is and what is not 'fake news'. Hmm.. but doesn't that mean that they literally have to have a God Like ability to see and know almost everything?! Well, no actually - as it turns out you don't need God when you have snopes.com. I shit you not - the ultimate arbiter of truth according to these 'cough' 'scientists' is Snopes.com and other similar 'fact check' sites. We will examine Snopes in more detail shortly here.
I'm sure that researchers here do not need to be reminded that basing an entire study of 'truth' on the accuracy of specific groups of other researchers' abilities to know 'the truth' is fundamentally flawed. Just because a group of people makes the claim that they are going to research 'challenging topics' to 'get to the truth' does NOT mean that they are accurate in their answers and any student of history and geo-politics knows that even the best intended project is likely to be targeted for manipulation by secret services and other such groups. Oh, what? Did I just suggest a 'conspiracy theory'? Run for the hills! Well, no, actually - I just stated absolute historical record. Don't believe me, ask Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, the German Academic whistleblower who was editor of a top German newspaper and who stated that he was paid for years by the CIA to lie to the world on a grand scale. He also stated that pretty much every other journalist in the industry was also bought off. You could ask him more about it but he died not long after he blew the whistle (I'm sure it was just a coincidence).
Snopes.com
Any site that attempts to 'tell us the truth' should be questioned carefully.. After all, isn't that the whole point of the site existing? Isn't it basically them who are saying that 'there are liars among us all'? So we are obliged to believe NO-ONE and do our own research, right?
A few years ago, Snopes' founder was caught up in a legal battle involving his porn star wife due to.. well..:
In legal papers filed in San Diego Superior Court, they say: 'But while Snopes is built entirely around the concepts of transparency and truth, its founder, Defendant David Mikkelson ('Mikkelson') has engaged in a lengthy scheme of concealment and subterfuge to gain control of the company and to drain its profits.'
Mikkelson carried out 'pervasive fraud' at Snopes and used the accounts to pay for lavish trips and personal items while refusing requests from shareholders to examine his expenditures.
But hey, I'm sure this is a solid backdrop against which to determine whether any given statement from any human ever, is .. true.
I'm sure the fact that Snopes was caught changing it's assessment of a story regarding the safety of Monstanto's GMO products and that Monsanto pays Snopes a large advertising fee are completely unrelated and that Snopes' total inability to screen it's 'fact checkers' to prevent infiltration from - anyone anywhere - is nothing to be concerned about.. right?
Conclusions
It is not until we do our OWN research into subjects BEYOND the mainstream cookie cutter narrative of reality that we will start to uncover the denial that permeates that mainstream narrative. This is a hugely challenging thing for many of us to do because it means looking at numerous extremely evil lies that we have been programmed to believe pretty much since birth. Most of the murders in human history originate from governments - yet we are educated BY those GOVERNMENTS - I'm sure even the most blinkered and 'normal' among us can see how this is a problem. Or at least I would like to be sure, but since I know very well that many of us are so shut down and closed minded that we would deny that we breathe air if we were told to do it - sadly, I know that many will still refuse to see the obvious here.
If we renamed the paper from 'The spread of true and false news online' to 'The spread of things that Snopes says is true or false online.' then we would have a more honest narrative here.
It doesn't matter how many people in 'positions of authority' use their VERSION of 'science' to attempt to 'prove' something, the truth is still the truth and lies are still lies. Not only is this study fatally flawed (just like MANY other studies held up as 'fact') - it appears to not even include a section on any 'conflicts of interests' by it's authors - in other words, we do not know who they are paid by, what grants they have received and what might be motivating them outside of 'integrity' to say what they are saying.
I'll let the ex Vice President of Pfizer, one of the world's largest pharmaceutical corporations have the last words here as he explains how such companies 'buy science' (sell us lies) by infiltrating academia and controlling the narrative:
Wishing you well,
Ura Soul
Vote @ura-soul for Steem Witness!
View My Witness Application Here
"journalism is a weapon of mass disinformation"- unknown
Does it always lead to weaponization, or does it start there, like so many innovations start as military applications? Could Steemit become weaponized - what sort of inertia dampers do we put in place? Is it simply a matter of being more curious and less interested absolute statements? Do we make the keyboard a telescope or microscope rather than a flag to plant?
Another great piece. Don’t blind them with the facts. Dont frighten them with freedom.
Thanks! 'Frightened by Freedom' sounds like an apt gravestone engraving for many of us, sadly!
One of the most frustrating things is getting into a debate with someone over politics and they use claims based upon whether Snopes says its true or false...
90% of fakebook users only know Snopes, and like you alluded to, take it for gospel.
Yes, it's fine to use another resource as reference, but if you cannot explain where the information comes from or demonstrate that you yourself understand what you are saying and why what you are saying is right/wrong then the situation is a huge problem and smacks of a potential propaganda machine with large numbers of unconscious footsoldiers!
Good article! I believe that all MSM is playing as a puppet on strings. Included RT, Sputnik, Aljazeera and so on. They are all in the same bed and dividing the masses. Where do you stand with this?
Thanks! I suggest listening to the interview with Dr. Udo Ulfkotte in the post above. He describes how most journalists are controlled by the CIA, including him!
I can't speak for individual agencies as I really don't watch any of them with any regularity now.
It is indeed hard to determine what is "real" and what is "fake" news, firstly because nothing is 100% "true", and secondly because two things can be true at the same time:
Is, for example, relating the facts correctly but omitting a very important fact, true or false news?
Is relating the facts with chronological order but carefully choosing adjectives and labels to influence opinion true or false news?
The biggest way to manipulate through the media is actually through the use of language, not the facts themselves. It is how you present a story, through highlighting specific events over others, choosing words and writing styles to describe events, people and ideas, and the choice of pictures.
Therefore, the only way to get a more objective idea of what is really going on is consult as many sources as possible. Sources from the opposition. Sources from independent authors. Sources from abroad, from different points in time and space. And of course, use critical thinking.
Greetings!
The image here is important to understand, yes - however, the fact that there are multiple angles on the truth does not mean that we cannot understand truth 100%. By remaining open and agile in our ability to examine details and perspectives, we can build up a thorough understanding of the topic.
The 'spin' aspect is a key method used to misrepresent the facts, yes - typically by telling half the truth and omitting other aspects. Sometimes this is done deliberately and sometimes it is done unconsciously because those involved actually think what they are saying is true when it is missing important facts.
The most important element in all of this understanding what judgements, bias and denial are - plus then removing them all from thought processes.
Is language enough? That is attacked so much now. Must we also be vigilant to think and express things freely which don't necessarily adhere to status quo? How much can these large propaganda silos care what it is they are pumping out, point is they are concerned with 'how' people respond. My theory is to approach things from a seven-point perspective: mathematical, historical, scientific, ethical, philsophical, religious, and occult. What levels of varying objective reliability do these frameworks provide in the scope of topics, particular to those distributors who want me to think something, not enable me to creatively wonder about something.
Interesting approach and it's an exercise that definitely offers you a greater perspective. However, I believe that categorizing itself is limiting, because adhering to categories offers a false sense of a global / objective perspective and creates a kind of a middle ground fallacy. These seven categories were picked by you and were influenced by your own personal experiences, beliefs and biases. For example, another person might never have picked "religious" and "occult" or even "ethical" since they are disciplines that depend on personal belief or opinion versus proven facts, but they might have picked "logic" or "semantics" or "evolutionary biology" or "anthropology" or "linguistics" and so on. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the categories themselves are constraining you inside your own biases, because they force you to choose which scope you believe is more important to examine things from. It's best to just be open and not categorize approaches. Just try to think critically and combine sources and knowledge.
I was unable to keep reading after this, too many tears from laughing/crying...
😂😂😂
"In snopes we trust" 😂
I believe we're constantly being manipulated by a small but powerful set who want only their ideology established in the developed World. That's why there's always 'scientific data' today back up even the most outrageous claims. Sadly, they are winning.
One of the main groups was deeply exposed by ivy league historian Carrol Quigley a few decades ago: https://steemit.com/politics/@ura-soul/the-whistleblowers-series-13-representative-democracy-is-a-con-game-designed-by-a-hidden-network-of-oligarchs-a-highly-respected
Of course the establishment powers are just trying to maintain their control, but I think people really do need to be told what to think. Most people aren't going to do their own research, and when you consider how many people believe truly ridiculous things, you begin to lose faith in democracy. The fact that the establishment itself peddles fake news, doesn't mean that a free-for-all gets the truth to everybody. I think it's a real problem. A truly free information market might not produce good results.
I strongly suggest considering your thought patterns here carefully. You are advocating for restriction of information, but based on what? There is no way to do this other than by 'someone' being the judge and jury over it. This is always doomed to failure.
The only answer is for us to collectively heal and evolve to be enlightened - rather than fighting each other, trying to control everything and wasting so much time on pointless activity.
As far as democracy goes - heavyweight researchers are well aware that representational democracy was exposed as entirely fraudulent long ago.
Do you see a way out of this dilemma? I have a hard time. I just re-steemed a post from a guy "debunking" chemtrails. Seriously. One of the trending posts on steemit is about a guy eating bugs. 500 upvotes. Yes, some people are waking up. But in my observation much more get crazier every day. BTW, I did steal your Dresden James quote, hope you don't mind :)
When we understand principles of non dependency on others and the internal mechanics of personal enlightenment, all things become much clearer. These are 'things' which have taken me years to clarify within myself, however, they are ever easier to teach others and spread since as more time passes, those within intent to heal achieve ever greater levels of balance and understanding.
Provided we have ways of communicating that are unhindered and a strong enough will to value truth over lies - we will prevail, one way or another.
Steal away!
I don't think you understand. I am not advocating anything but thinking. People ARE told what to think. They do not do all the research on everything. They do not "evolve" into super geniuses with endless time available to research everything. They believe what they are told by the sources they trust, and so do you. And the "democracy" I speak of is what you apparently advocate, and I know you don't mean that your old "heavyweights" disagree with you, so you must not understand that point, either.
you wrote:
and
I'm sure you can see how that does not fit well with:
It is possible to be evolved such that priorities, intentions and abilities are changed appropriately to ensure that important topics are researched sufficiently.
I aim to remove all beliefs as I do not value them.
I do not advocate for democracy in the form we have known it - representational democracy is one of the biggest frauds ever created and can never help us since it, by definition, takes the power of the many, gives it to the few and gives the many little way of being heard.
You seem to not understand the difference between saying something might not produce good results, and saying that I'm advocating the opposite. You are engaging in rhetoric and not discussion. Things that you deem to be "possible" may be theoretically possible, and yet very unlikely to happen. An honest person will acknowledge this when a partisan will not. Apparently, you still do not understand that I was applying "democracy" to the information market, not to a form of government. I'll have to work on my clarity there.
I am responding to points made, using logic - that is all.
I have dealt daily for over 15 years with redirecting the use of logic among 1000s of people to help them 'see the light' regarding common errors of logic and regularly have success in that. I know that we are evolving, so I do not calculate the probability of it, I just keep doing it.
I was not aware of that, since you gave no clue to it. Democracy is typically defined as a system of government, whereas 'the information market' typically isn't.
I said this, "Most people aren't going to do their own research, and when you consider how many people believe truly ridiculous things, you begin to lose faith in democracy."
My sentence links "democracy" to people "believing truly ridiculous things," which implies, I think, that I am referring to the information market and not a form of government. I shall clarify now. I meant the democratization of information, meaning, everybody gets to say and hear everything. The move in this direction of "democracy" has produced, in my view, little improvement in the people's understanding., but has simply added more noise. Most of the new information is bullshit, and so now people believe a greater variety of bullshit than they used to, but are no closer to truth. The one real effect, probably, is to increase distrust of establishment sources, which I deem to be a positive effect, but if the establishment lies are merely replaced by other lies, then people are no better informed and become more informationally isolated. They agree on less and become less politically effective. So, this "democratization" of information produces politically dubious results. Also, the establishment troubadours sabotage the information market in their own devious ways. And they have the resources to talk over the truthers, who are unable to unite because nobody agrees on anything in a free information market. The result seems to promote disintegration of any consensus. I think I'm just babbling now. Perhaps you understand my democracy reference now.
Your one-on-one efforts with logic may be successful. I can't judge that. But, one-on-one makes very slow progress in a sea of disintegrating consensus. Not saying you should stop. I'm not advocating anything but understanding.
Thanks for clarifying. In my experience, the cause of the problems is not that information is freely available, but that there is denial involved in the minds and intentions of the people. Denial has us thinking something is true when it is not and allow us to be deceived. By ending denial, we solve these problems and it can be done. This process requires us to end our own denials and then we can help others to do the same. Closing down information and judging that 'someone' has the capacity to direct people to the 'right' information is itself a form of denial, so while we all might think we are qualified to be that person, ultimately it doesn't help.
We are reaching a status of 'informational Darwinism' where are internet selves are scrambling to find the spaces on the web which'll provide us the means for protection, or assist us in figuring out how to protect ourselves from those which will drag the rest of us down as they refuse to do so themselves. Less exposure to poison never works, more. We must each learn in our own way to become The Dread Pirate Roberts and develop a tolerance to Iocane Powder.
Advocates of this philosophy also include :
Stalin,
Mao,
Pol pot,
Hitler,
Castro
Chavez
Do you see a pattern...?
Yes, I have seen your pattern for years. You are using the rhetoric of capitalism. Congratulations!
Your incredible post and the pictures you post are very inspiring to my mind, please support me and give me a lot of upvote and follow me include your comment, hopefully useful, go ahead and hope you succeed in steemit. by @zayanfaruk
Your incredible spam is so sophisticated. I would never have guessed. Please upvote me now and give me a lot of upvote.
great post!
great comment. Well worth a full vote. Can you flag your own comment?
lol.. possibly, but i am not yet financially suicidal! :)
Thank
Emoji Source
You got a 16.22% upvote from @upmewhale courtesy of @ura-soul! Earn 90% daily earning payout by delegating SP to @upmewhale.