Why it is important to doubt the gatekeepers....

[BrightShinyGirl]

So Forbs is intellectually dishonest and lying? If I am unbiased and have nothing to hide, I am open in having my fact checking fact checked. It's ironic. The Conservatives you call biased cite their sources at length, cite original documents and works, give so much of the context of a quote that the quote itself becomes boring to read, and invite their research to be challenged. In fact, on conservative talk radio, if a liberal calls in, they are often moved to the head of the line, and nearly always given huge space to speak and make their case against the host. And they are always handled with generosity, kindness, and respect unless they themselves become obnoxious in their behavior. At Conservative presentations on campuses, libs in the audience are treated with respect, given opportunity to speak, and are applauded for their courage to speak their beliefs in an audience who disagrees. Anti-Trumpers go to Trump rallies to show the hate there, and are greeted with love, respect, interested discussion and debate, and hugs.

On the left, it's quite the opposite.

Truth is that we are open because we have nothing to hide. We are kind because we genuinely love people. We are generous because we genuinely personally care. We are interested in real debate and discourse because we love truth and free thought. And we aren't shouting people down, gunning them down for wearing a hat, burning their store for having (or not having) a sign, or beating them up for the color of their skin or the message on their T-shirt.

Leftist groups, organizations, media, and "fact checkers" like Snopes can't say that. So when Forbes tries to fact check Snopes, they get blocked out, and Forbes finds Snopes to be dangerously wrong.

Be wary when everyone in the left leaning, socialist media starts citing a source.... ANY source. There's almost always a reason: they need an echo chamber to reinforce their lies.

Forbes and the Daily Mail are both conservative sources so they have their own biases (Albeit different ones--Forbes caters to the global moneyed elite, while the Daily Mail serves up red meat to working-class Tories)

So when Forbes runs an article about Snopes being biased based on another article in the Daily Mail, your Spidey-sense should start tingling. What's their agenda? Is Snopes really biased, or do conservatives just want to manufacture that impression?

It's telling that the Forbes article never cites a specific instance of bias on Snopes. It just expresses vague "concerns".

 

[Bn2f]

If you don't know what I am talking about, you are simply proving that your "Hey Google" has become an information gatekeeper for the left... Just like the rest of your "trustworthy" media.

I don't know what the hell you're still talking about.
Everyone here already knows about media bias. I even admitted that we all can fall prey. The whole existence of this thread is a "but, duh!"
I also explained how the members here from the right tend to be the spreaders of false information while most decent ones waste valuable time debunking.
Here, for example, give your answers to these - Did trump build a wall that Mexico paid for? Was Obama born in Hawaii? Was Harris ever designated by the administration as the immigration czar?

 

[JaySecrets]

Meh.

This is about the closest in agreeing you and I may get. Tim Scott IS a racist. He has a voting power to perpetuate a system that victimizes minorities including women and he actively uses it. The other two are sell out opportunists who have profited off the system. There’s a nuance to it that I don’t think a shit person claiming to be a Christian like you would understand. Maybe, I dunno, diversify your reading material and the people you have in your wretched so called life.

Lol... You are calling leading black conservative leaders racists. You realize, you privileged white liberal, that move alone is explicitly bigoted and racist, right?

Correction. Your life probably isn’t wretched. It’s in fact probably very privileged and exclusive judging from how you continually tell us how you view the world. GFY

I have led and been involved with writers groups that include mostly BLM Liberals from Milwaukee. Those men are some of my most precious friends. My favorite person in the world, and my co-laborer in the missional work I do is a very liberal black woman who was the former Poet Laureate of Milwaukee and Wisconsin. She has actually published some of my writing over the years. I have more diversity, from liberal to conservative, from alt left to alt right, from gay to straight, and just about every ethnicity, sexual preference, and major worldview (and a couple strange minor ones) in those I spend my time with and invest in.

As for my privilege, I work at a mom and pop chain of sandwich shops, making $12 an hour as manager. I love it. I get to have a platform to help people who need a job and a second chance. But I live paycheck to paycheck, live in a small apartment, and can't even afford a car.

I know what I speak of, because shit rolls downhill, and I get hit with most of it in my trying to survive. I know the difference in worldviews and outcomes because I live among, hire, work with, and love on people from every walk of life. Something that I doubt you can even begin to honestly claim.

 

[JaySecrets]

This never happened.

It has happened in workplaces and churches, both in the more extreme states like California, and across the globe in the nations you seem intent on emulating. You'd know this if you actually had information, not gatekeepers.

 

[JaySecrets]

A lot of bloviating bs to finally say you’re a MAGAt. But just so you’re clear, trump has finally come out and said if he wins you’ll never have to vote again. In other words, if trump wins democracy loses bigly.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1817147051517337935

If you think that's what he is talking about, you are listening through a very tainted filter. This is given in the context of fixing the Biden presidency mess. He is saying that he will do such a good job with the economy a with freedoms that they will be unable to be ruined by further presidents. Hyperbole? Of course. Way more than anyone could accomplish? Of course. But stop imposing your paranoia on another person's words.

 

[HisArpy]

Forbes and the Daily Mail are both conservative sources so they have their own biases (Albeit different ones--Forbes caters to the global moneyed elite, while the Daily Mail serves up red meat to working-class Tories)

So when Forbes runs an article about Snopes being biased based on another article in the Daily Mail, your Spidey-sense should start tingling. What's their agenda? Is Snopes really biased, or do conservatives just want to manufacture that impression?

It's telling that the Forbes article never cites a specific instance of bias on Snopes. It just expresses vague "concerns".

It took Snopes 7 years to admit that one of it's fact checks was wrong. They didn't do it because they're unbiased or neutral.

 

[JaySecrets]

Do you mean like President Zelenski of Ukraine? First he banned all opposition political parties, then he cancelled the election. His term has expired. He is not legally President anymore.

Careful friend. You are implying that the Ukrainian leadership may not be the good guys. Google says they are and their gods.... I mean media elite experts says they are. It's not "Thus says the Lord" for them, it's "Thus saith Google". You might invite their wrath. They might *whispers* cancel you!

 

[ll74]

Do you mean like President Zelenski of Ukraine? First he banned all opposition political parties, then he cancelled the election. His term has expired. He is not legally President anymore.

He didn't cancel the election. He declared martial law, due to the Russian invasion of the country, which suspends election by the Constitution. He is the current President of the country, legally.

 

[Bn2f]

Lol... You are calling leading black conservative leaders racists.

I called only one of them racist and I gave a detailed reasoning.

You realize, you privileged white liberal, that move alone is explicitly bigoted and racist, right?

I have never expressly told my race or gender here. But if you must know, I consider myself troll for both.

I have led and been involved with writers groups that include mostly BLM Liberals from Milwaukee. Those men are some of my most precious friends. My favorite person in the world, and my co-laborer in the missional work I do is a very liberal black woman who was the former Poet Laureate of Milwaukee and Wisconsin. She has actually published some of my writing over the years. I have more diversity, from liberal to conservative, from alt left to alt right, from gay to straight, and just about every ethnicity, sexual preference, and major worldview (and a couple strange minor ones) in those I spend my time with and invest in.

They do you a disservice by not being completely transparent with you. Many black folks do that because experience has shown that the least connected and poorest of whites have the power to still do harm (see Tulsa race riots).

As for my privilege, I work at a mom and pop chain of sandwich shops, making $12 an hour as manager. I love it. I get to have a platform to help people who need a job and a second chance. But I live paycheck to paycheck, live in a small apartment, and can't even afford a car.
So

I feel for you. But only slightly. The Christianity that I practiced taught me to be kind and appreciative, and to love the downtrodden and least among us. You are a conservative who considers themselves a Christian first and you come here and preach the words of blasphemy.

I know what I speak of, because shit rolls downhill, and I get hit with most of it in my trying to survive. I know the difference in worldviews and outcomes because I live among, hire, work with, and love on people from every walk of life. Something that I doubt you can even begin to honestly claim.

Stop supporting shit conservative values. Be more like Jesus.

 

[JaySecrets]

Forbes and the Daily Mail are both conservative sources so they have their own biases (Albeit different ones--Forbes caters to the global moneyed elite, while the Daily Mail serves up red meat to working-class Tories)

So when Forbes runs an article about Snopes being biased based on another article in the Daily Mail, your Spidey-sense should start tingling. What's their agenda? Is Snopes really biased, or do conservatives just want to manufacture that impression?

It's telling that the Forbes article never cites a specific instance of bias on Snopes. It just expresses vague "concerns".

So the smart finance people who need to know the truth because they have billions riding on it rely on a right wing biased paper with bad information. Interesting way to handle finances.

Give me a break. There is a reason why the information in papers like this seems leaning towards the right.... BECAUSE IT IS FACTUAL! If it weren't, people could lose billions! Good Lord your side is gullible in your bumpersticker thinking. Maybe you need to seek counseling from Alexa.

 

[ll74]

Oh and all of the information I posted can be verified using any search engine of choice, except Russian, which also blames the invasion of Ukraine on NATO.

 

[Bn2f]

It has happened in workplaces and churches, both in the more extreme states like California, and across the globe in the nations you seem intent on emulating. You'd know this if you actually had information, not gatekeepers.

This has never happened.

 

[JaySecrets]

I don't know what the hell you're still talking about.
Everyone here already knows about media bias. I even admitted that we all can fall prey. The whole existence of this thread is a "but, duh!"
I also explained how the members here from the right tend to be the spreaders of false information while most decent ones waste valuable time debunking.
Here, for example, give your answers to these - Did trump build a wall that Mexico paid for? Was Obama born in Hawaii? Was Harris ever designated by the administration as the immigration czar?

Did Mexico pay for the wall? Yes. Many times over in the revamped trade deals and the Stay in Mexico policy. Funds are fungible, to use a recent fun to say truism.

Was Obama born in Hawaii?I don't believe so but it doesn't matter. His mom is an American citizen, and therefore the rest of the debate is moot.

Was Harris the border czar? The administration proudly said she was. There are Senate hearings involving her performance in that role! The narrative changed when that became inconvenient. But hey, shove things down that memory hole ..... They never EVER pop up again.

 

[JaySecrets]

I called only one of them racist and I gave a detailed reasoning.

I have never expressly told my race or gender here. But if you must know, I consider myself troll for both.

They do you a disservice by not being completely transparent with you. Many black folks do that because experience has shown that the least connected and poorest of whites have the power to still do harm (see Tulsa race riots).

I feel for you. But only slightly. The Christianity that I practiced taught me to be kind and appreciative, and to love the downtrodden and least among us. You are a conservative who considers themselves a Christian first and you come here and preach the words of blasphemy.


Stop supporting shit conservative values. Be more like Jesus.

You have no clue what you are talking about. Not even sure you have read a Bible cover to cover, let alone more than once. But that's not the debate on this thread. Anything to add that's actually on topic?

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

So the smart finance people who need to know the truth because they have billions riding on it rely on a right wing biased paper with bad information. Interesting way to handle finances.

Give me a break. There is a reason why the information in papers like this seems leaning towards the right.... BECAUSE IT IS FACTUAL! If it weren't, people could lose billions! Good Lord your side is gullible in your bumpersticker thinking. Maybe you need to seek counseling from Alexa.

The rich owners learned they could make more money by publishing comforting lies than publishing hard truths.

 

[JaySecrets]

This has never happened.

More holes for you to shove facts down and make them disappear.

 

[JaySecrets]

The rich owners learned they could make more money by publishing comforting lies than publishing hard truths.

False. Too much financial cost to subscribers. They would dump the paper. You really are a useful idiot aren't you.

 

[HisArpy]

The rich owners learned they could make more money by publishing comforting lies than publishing hard truths.

Welcome to the world of publishing regardless of subject matter or audience. It always has been a follow the money kind of business model. Because capitalism.

 

[Bn2f]

More holes for you to shove facts down and make them disappear.

Ok. You could have summed up all three of your answers by just saying facts are fungible. I’m done with you. You lying piece of garbage person you.

 

[jomar]

If you think that's what he is talking about, you are listening through a very tainted filter. This is given in the context of fixing the Biden presidency mess. He is saying that he will do such a good job with the economy a with freedoms that they will be unable to be ruined by further presidents. Hyperbole? Of course. Way more than anyone could accomplish? Of course. But stop imposing your paranoia on another person's words.

Lol, he’s not saying anything like you’re claiming whatsoever, you’re projecting what you think he means through your own echo chamber filter. He’s been telling everyone exactly what he plans to do but he’s done a Jedi mind trick on y’all so you think he’s a patriot and has your best interest in mind. You probably also believe he has no idea what project 2025 is and that he also disagrees with some of it.

 

[SmokingFap]

If the information is based on right wing corporate interests and totally wrong, it's easy enough to prove. Why will none of you actually try to do the searches on Google and YouTube, ect, and prove me and them wrong? Run the experiment. Show your work.

Let me help you. Start by saying "Hey Google" or open your Google search engines and go from there. It's amusing how much time you spend arguing instead of proving. It's like the couple arguing whether the lights in the room were working. The argument was solved immediately when someone flipped the light switch.

I just googled several subjects and proved your claim entirely wrong. Prove me wrong.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

False. Too much financial cost to subscribers. They would dump the paper. You really are a useful idiot aren't you.

Papers don't make money from subscribers. They make money from advertisers. Advertisers don't care if the paper is accurate or not. They just care about how many eyeballs they can reach. If you want to understand media bias, you need to understand the incentives at work. It doesn't matter how much a newspaper lies if they have a large-enough audience that LIKES being lied to.

That's the Fox News business model.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Papers don't make money from subscribers. They make money from advertisers. Advertisers don't care if the paper is accurate or not. They just care about how many eyeballs they can reach. If you want to understand media bias, you need to understand the incentives at work. It doesn't matter how much a newspaper lies if they have a large-enough audience that LIKES being lied to.

That's the Fox News business model.

Since I'm on a roll, this also explains why media owners are so bullish on LLMs. Paying writers is expensive. It's even more expensive to pay good writers to get things right. If you use AI to spit out page after page of inaccurate slop with intriguing headlines, you can still sell ads to monetize the people who click through.

Eventually people will get wise and stop clicking through, but modern vulture capitalists consider brands disposable. Take a brand people trust, get rich quick by enshittifying it, then abandon the husk and move on to the next target.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Let's also talk about the Lit business model. Lit makes money from ads. They have to pay server costs, and the occasional prize, but their overhead is pretty low. The draw to get eyeballs on the ads is mostly the smut, but it's also the forums. Both are pretty cheap. They don't have to pay the writers, and they certainly don't have to pay the posters.

That's why AI stories are absolutely forbidden. If the readers start seeing a lot crap stories they'll wise up and stop coming back. Since the writers already provide stories for free there's no incentive to turn a quick buck and burn Lit's brand.

With the forums the incentives are different. Spicy, provocative posts are good because they drive engagement and keep us coming back and looking at the ads on the front page. But outright trolling is bad, because people don't like being trolled, so if the random reader sees too many trolls, they'll give up on the forums. Also bad are posts than could bring unwanted attention from outside the site--bring down the law, or censors on the site.

 

[Lazaran]

It's telling that the Forbes article never cites a specific instance of bias on Snopes. It just expresses vague "concerns".

Those vague "concerns" from a compromised source were good enough for JaySecretions…for "some"’reason…

I wonder why???



We. Know. Why.



JFC

SAD!!!