Facebook censorship?

[Rich Z]

Not that it will affect me, as I never go there, but perhaps some of you might find this of interest....

Facebook deciding what “fake news” is just means more left-wing censorship

Mike Gwilliam
Rebel Columnist

December 15, 2016

Facebook has announced it will be teaming with Snopes and ABC News to filter out 'fake news'.

According to Business Insider, “the decision comes after Facebook received heated criticism for its role in spreading a deluge of political misinformation during the U.S. presidential election.”

In addition, the report says “Facebook will make it easier to report news stories that are fake or misleading.”

How easily do you think this is going to be abused? Say there's a story about a liberal politician doing something wrong and liberals want to bury it – they'll just keep spamming that report button in an attempt to bury it.

In addition, Snopes is anything but unbiased. Remember the Idaho Migrant sexual assault case in which a little girl was victimized? Snopes labeled that story as false. In fact, it's true. Much to the displeasure of the refugee-loving mainstream media and left-wing individuals.

On a small plus side, fake/spoofed domain names such as washingtonpost.co will be reviewed. Aside from that though, look for legitimate news that the left doesn't want you to see to be filtered.

There's no mention in the article of memes with false quotes being dealt with. I'm sure you've all seen that fake Donald Trump quote where he call Republicans dumb at some point in time.

It's no secret that Mark Zuckerberg is a left-wing globalist who wants open borders. Now, by softly announcing that 'fake news' will be buried, he's essentially saying that censorship is coming. Just expect right-wing outlets to be the primary victims.

Source: http://www.therebel.media/facebook_d...e_even_greater

[mrr23]

yeah snopes another sometimes fake news site.

[vett boy]

The United States is ranked 41st in freedom of the press world wide .Six years ago we we're 21st but who cares and as Hillary would say "what does it matter "

[mrr23]

http://reagancoalition.com/articles/...edium=facebook

[Rich Z]

EXPOSED – Guess Who is REALLY Behind Snopes.com?

Those who have been at least partially aware of the goings on of the Internet has, no doubt, come across the website Snopes.com, a self-proclaimed “myth-busting” site. At its genesis, Snopes popped the bubbles surrounding urban legends and, at times even provided some accurate insight into the stories behind those urban legends. If nothing else, it was mildly entertaining. That was then.

Chief among the Progressive stalwarts at Snopes is “main political fact-checker,” Kim Lacapria, according to the Daily Caller. Ironically, or not, prior to her position as political fact-checker for Snopes, Lacapria was wrote for the Inquisitr, a blog with less than stellar reputation.

Today, Snopes has turned into a sycophantic political surrogate for the Progressive Left, the Obama Administration, and Hillary Clinton. Fancying itself as a “political fact-checker,” it has become completely unreliable, existing as an excuse making machine for the morally relativistic and a propaganda apparatus fueled by unfounded accusations and political talking points; talking points seemingly crafted and issued directly from the Progressive minions of Chicago.

To say Lacapria exhibited “clear partisanship” while writing for Inquisitr would be to ignore her writing sounded more like that of a Democrat speechwriter than that of an objective journalist.

Lacapria violated the very first rule of journalistic ethics in describing herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. To stake out a position with such fervor is to admit there exists not an objective bone in her body, which, by that very fact, makes her disqualified – ethically – from “fact-checking” anything political.

While with Inquisitr, she routinely disparaged the whole of the TEA Party Movement, calling those who took to the streets to protest over-taxation and over-reaching government as “TEAhadists.” Lacapria’s comparison of the TEA Party to the fascists of Islam, of course, is a signature trait of the caustically Left.

Aside from fawning over the presidency of Bill Clinton, whose only two real achievements were pretending the financial surplus created by the ending of the Cold War was somehow his economic genius, and escaping impeachment for perjuring himself, Lacapria blindly regurgitated the Progressive talking points of welfare fraud:

“Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth – or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty.”

It would appear the future “fact-checker” missed the Congressional Budget Office and General Accounting Office reports on the cost of welfare fraud. In food stamp and EBT card fraud alone, the US government is scammed out of tens of millions of dollars – if not hundreds of millions – annually. That’s a pretty big “fact” to miss for a “fact-checker.”

Exposing her frothing-at-the-mouth hatred for Republicans and Conservatives, Lacapria went so far as to accuse the Bush administration of “criminal negligence” in the September 11, 2001, attacks. Of course, she provided no evidence to support her accusation, a typical tactic of those Progressives who manufacture false narratives and deceptive memes to advance the Leftist cause.

Lacapria has manufactured, nuanced, and spun facts about Hillary Clinton and Benghazi, Omar Mateem not “really being” a Democrat despite his official party registration, and Facebook being an above-board and non-manipulative news source.

But Lacapria simply joins the very small crew at Snopes who have existed as bias from the start. David and Barbara Mikkelson, the founders and proprietors of Snopes, have been found on many occasions to have “erred” on the side of the truth best benefiting the Left’s narrative on issues. The very fact the website quotes heavily from the self-identified Left-leaning New York Times illustrates an out-of-the-box bias from the start.

To wit, just as with any online “resource,” you should do your own homework when it comes to fact-checking. Most often it isn’t that hard to divine the truth and you will be better informed with first-source information for doing so. In a world where everyone believes their opinions to be valid, all of us are forced to do our due diligence in the quest for the truth.

Source: http://www.angrypatriotmovement.com/...behind-snopes/

[Rich Z]

Snopes is run by a man and a woman with no background in investigation using Google.

Snopes.com has been considered the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email. Once negative article by them and people point and say, "See, I told you it wasn't true!" But what is Snopes? What are their methods and training that gives them the authority to decide what is true and what is not? For several years people have tried to find out who exactly was behind the website Snopes.com. Only recently did they get to the bottom of it. Are you ready for this? It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators scouring public records in Washington, no researchers studying historical stacks in libraries, no team of lawyers reaching a consensus on current caselaw. No, Snopes.com is just a mom-and-pop operation that was started by two people who have absolutely no formal background or experience in investigative research.

David and Barbara Mikkelson pictured above; are from San Fernando Valley of California. They started their website 'Snopes' about 13 years ago. After a few years it began gaining popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral. But over the past couple of years people started asking questions when 'Snopes' was proven wrong in a number of their conclusions. There were also criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues, but rather asserting their beliefs in controversial issues.

In 2008, State Farm agent Bud Gregg hoisted a political sign in Mandeville, Louisiana referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet. The Mikkelson's were quick to "research" this issue and post their condemnation of it on Snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Mr. Gregg into taking down the sign. In fact, nothing of the sort ever took place. A friend of Mr. Gregg personally contacted David Mikkelson to alert him of the factual inacuracy, leaving him Mr. Gregg's contact phone numbers. Mr. Mikkelson was told that Mr. Gregg would give him the phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would inform them that they had never pressured Mr. Gregg to take down his sign.

But the Mikkelson's never called Mr. Gregg. In fact, Mr. Gregg found out that no one from Snopes.com had ever contacted any one with State Farm. Yet, Snopes.com has kept their false story of Mr. Gregg up to this day, as the "final factual word" on the issue.

What is behind Snopes' selfish motivation? A simple review of their "fact-checking" reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the "main-stream" media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-modivated.

So if you really want to know the truth about a story or a rumor you have heard, by all means do not go to Snopes.com! You could do just as well if you were a liberal with an internet connection. Don't go to wikipedia.com either as their team of amateur editors have also been caught in a number of bold-faced liberal-biased untruths. (Such as Wikigate and their religious treatment of Obama.) Take anything these sites say with a grain of salt and an understanding that they are written by people with a motive to criticize all things conservative. Use them only to lead you to solid references where you can read their sources for yourself.

Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do.

Source: http://accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.c...ot-snoped.html