Opposition to seeds that are immediately censored from open conversation.
I understand it when introductory discussions are offered here....HOWEVER...to routinely post a topic, and within a few hours, and less than 30 divergent comments, close it to open debate....I somehow find this to be childish and frankly rather'Soviet'.
If you have the balls to start a conversation....Please have the balls to argue it.
What the hell is the point?
Tags
Who is online
73 visitors
I guess that would explain why I can't comment on some articles. Pretty childish.
Jeremy, I missed this. Who can you not comment to?
It was the link below. I just now saw that the discussion was locked. I stand corrected. I didn't see that earlier. I apologize, I didn't meant to cause any confusion.
Seems to me, everyone is free to weigh in on a topic as long as they are reasonably civil. Some, however, let their emotions rule and if this gets too out of hand the author or mods may pull the plug.
Not sure what people expect. We know the ugly effects of no moderation so that is not a good option. NT has a CoC determined by the community and enforced by the mods. What specifically would you do to improve on this?
In order to keep everyone happy, it seems that for tragedy articles we need a specially designated 'condolence' thread for condolences, prayers, etc. All discussion of the issues around a tragedy gets it's own 'issues' thread for the same article. Some people take these tragedies very personally and are hurt/angered by any vigorous debate of the issues around them. I'm still blown away by the Alex Jones comment being deemed a violation. There are some very immature and hypersensitive people here who consider everything they don't like hearing to be some kind of site violation.
Hence why we have a flagging system. The mods know what they are looking for in a violation, and it's spelled out in the CoC which is really not that different than the CoH most of you are used to.
Well. Allow me to opine.
I'm not gonna post this in purple, because I don't want to seem heavy handed. Perrie, as the RA has already posted in purple so my comments will be in black.
Fake News is out there. And it gets pretty shady at times. Right now on the Book of Face every far right nut case is blaming the recent shooting on Antifa. And even here on NT, someone has posted an article about that. Regardless of the truth, this story is gaining momentum in some far right corners.
Occasionally, we get fake news, or something just as bad, sensationalized headline articles and opinion pieces about some news event that is so far in the outfield you can't see the players. And this comes from every side. And when it does, the other side jumps all over it. And then the friends of the seeder jump in with support. And we get a lot of "Prove it wrong" shit thrown around. And then we get shit slung at each other. And then we have to go through those articles with the purple pen and bleed all over it. And everyone comes away dirty, and stinking.
In the last couple of weeks, we've seen this happen twice. In one case, the article was up for 2 days, with everyone attacking the seeder and any who supported him. Until another article was posted which pretty much debunked the first article completely. And the first article was removed. I'm not going to get into the shit storm that occurred after that, it's immaterial.
The second example, was a little more civil. I say a little because if the author had not deleted the article, you would see my purple pen used on several comments in it. But it was civil in that members pointed out the lack of proof available to back up the article. And after a while, the seeder pulled the article.
Now, in both cases, members used the two methods that are available to them to dispute and rid the site of the Fake News. Posting a counter-article, and disputing the validity of the article. Both are allowed. Both are effective.
They are allowed because we don't block fake news. Why? Because we know there are enough smart members on this site to take care of it in the methods described above.
So. You want to post fake news? Have a blast. But don't complain when it gets hammered (within the bounds of the CoC) for being fake.
You want to ban fake news? If you do, you're saying that the folks on NT are not smart enough to figure out fake shit for themselves. Sorry. We're adults. The site is not going to babysit every article posted and vett them for accuracy.
E.A Courts Spend a fortune Attempting to.. so I doubt NT can even if it wants to!
I agree that it would be impractical to prevent Fake News seeds. But "preventing" isn't how rules are enforced on NT. Members can post whatever they like... and then the Mods take action if need be, including punishment.
How about suspension as a penalty for seeding Fake News?
The first episode you recall was blatant. It was "too good to be true", from a certain point of view. When something is too good to be true... it probably isn't. Caution should have been an obvious reaction.
I'd be willing to have our "College of Mods" decide on the penalty for a Fake News seed, from just a take-down and public warning, to a suspension.
Would this have a chilling effect? I hope so!
Penalizing people for posting...... Great way to empty the room. The only way that piece was BLATANT was if you subscribe to the ideal that it was the posters intent to be false, which wasn't there at all and repeatedly stated.... It sure appeared to be to be politically biased judgment. There was a lot of caution from several members, the caution was expressed by not posting to it. The only ones that did was those that wished to judge the poster.
Really? The only thing this ideal would result in is a site with no participants.....
I HOPE SO?????
Wow, thought control, good way to keep out those thoughts (and people) you do not like. So we are advocating FOR an echo chamber now! The only thoughts/posts you can have are the governmental approved ones.....
I thought you didn't like active moderation?
That's a good one.
IN YOUR OPINION! that is the part you and your compatriots keep leaving out John.
You and yours ascribe intent to the poster and REFUSE to actually read what the poster was saying when challenged.
He was clearly saying that "This is what some are saying" No you refused to connect with that, prejudging him the person cause he is someone you vehemently disagree with.
There are several people around here that one side does this with. Your side looks at the person posting and doesn't matter what the content is, your side trashes it cause of who posted it, NOT what was being said.
Someone can post a completely documented article of their own creation or seed someone else's with links to back it up from here to there.
AND YOU GUYS STILL TRASH THE HELL OUT OF IT, JUST CAUSE YOU DISLIKE THE PERSON POSTING IT!!!!!
There's years of proof to that one. and your side has made it clear that they deliberately got people banned on NV and in MY OPINION, have tried very heavily to get such done here.
WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THIS SITE?
Your opinions of the poster don't matter and in fact if carried too far will get your side banned.......
This is 100% OPPOSITE of 95% of all the sites out there. But that is why they are echo chambers and NT isn't.....
Which is why I love it here...
Even though there are some that want to make it a cesspool, the management won't allow that to happen.
Ok... Let's turn this around. Are you ok with seeding Fake News? Anybody can post anything as fact?
A "professional journalist" sincerely seeds a story of an explosive national news importance after seeing it on two barely known far right blogs, and nowhere else.
Uh, no.
NO I'M NOT!
But it is incumbent for the members to reveal it as fake news, and LEAVE THE INSULTIVE DIATRIBE AT HOME.
Insulting someone is not debunking or exposing fakes....
That's the big problem with some around here, they think their insult is fact or counter argument.
I think it is fake so it IS fake......
I've had that one used on me so many times it drives to not want to post. and that IS the point of the tactic.
If you cannot rationally expose an ideal as false, insult the person posing it until they cease.....
Be civil is all that is asked, but understand the tone you take is likely to be thrown back at you more often than not....
And keep your flamethrowers/machine guns/ atomic nuclear cannons holstered....
In short, avoiding any 'peer review' of like minded members. Perhaps if more of us called out our 'friends', those bad actors would recognize that not even their 'buddies' think that crap is worthy of posting here on NT.
Oh and BTFW, there were plenty of cheerleaders involved in that seed.
Are you claiming that you do not judge members based on the content of their seeds and comments? In fact, isn't your comment a judgement of the member that you replied to?
Seriously, I think we'd all have to admit that we judge other members. How else do we choose which members to 'friend' [or not] and whose groups we want to join?
That assumes that EVERY member seeds Fake News. That is a totally false assumption.
ALL of the CoC has some kind of 'chilling effect', it's the whole purpose of having a CoC. Will it preclude some 'thoughts' from being posted, YES. Could it turn off some 'people' who want a free for all, YES again. Yet from what I have gathered through comments from the RA and mods, the CoC has evolved, is agreed upon communally and is updated on a yearly bases with input from all members. Ultimately, we all make an informed decision to be members.
'SUGGESTIONS' for CoC changes are welcome and COGENT arguments pro and con should be too.
IMHO, attacking a member for making a good faith 'SUGGESTION' isn't productive.
IMO articles should be removed after they have been debunked. If the seeder doesnt want to take it down, it should be taken down for them.
I don't think anyone has suggested banning fake news, although I see no reason why articles from Infowars and a couple other sites cannot be excluded. They add nothing. Here is a video that shows Alex Jones commenting on Las Vegas
Why do we need this type of crap on NT?
My objection to what Perrie said above is that she seems to be saying that people have a "right" to have their conspiracy beliefs respected on Newstalkers. If that is to be the case just ban me right now.
A. Nobody is banning you. We would have to pay for therapy for BF if you left.
B. She's not saying the beliefs must be respected, she's saying the seeder must be respected, and the seeder's right to seed must be respected.
Same thing, and no.
No it's not the same thing. Here's an example. I believe that Hillary was the one who actually colluded with Russia. I believe she lied about her emails and server. Now, you don't have to respect that belief. But if you argue it with me, you must be respectful to me, not attack me for my belief, and respect the notion that I can post an article about that issue. That doesn't mean you have to respect the belief.
One of the great current 'conspiracies' that the right blathers on and on about is "Uranium One" . I have personally posted a number of articles and other expert opinion that debunks the right wing "Uranium One" conspiracy theories. How many times do I have to do it Bruce? 10, 20, 50?
There is no Uranium One scandal in the sense that right wing "news sites" have been describing it for years.
It has been debunked over and over.
I feel no requirement to be polite or respectful to people who keep posing it.
And there lies the problem. Thank you for illustrating it John....
Perfect picture of what Bruce is talking about.. You must be respectful of people all the time, you don't have to be respectful of what they post but of the PERSON, yes.
And you feel the opposite.
Which part did you debunk?
that she and her husband took millions from Russians?
that she failed to disclose it?
or that she supported the Russians purchase of uranium after taking money from them?
please show us where you debunked any of these things.
The entirety of the conspiracy theory.
The Clintons could have accepted money for their foundation without "giving" Russians anything as regards US uranium rights. And in fact that is what seems to have happened.
-
According to President Trump, some Republicans in Congress and conservative media outlets, the Russia scandal is heating up.
No, not that one.
It's an alternative Russia scandal. And the claims go like this:
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton approved the 2010 sale of a mining company to Russia. This gave the Russians control of 20 percent of U.S. uranium and placed U.S. national security at risk. In return, the Clinton Foundation received $145 million in pledges and donations.
Trump made this allegation during the 2016 campaign and again in an Oct. 19 tweet.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Uranium deal to Russia, with Clinton help and Obama Administration knowledge, is the biggest story that Fake Media doesn't want to follow!
5:17 AM - Oct 19, 2017
27,281 27,281 Replies 40,767 40,767 Retweets 120,387 120,387 likes
In the face of repeated fact checks, the president's claims have not withstood scrutiny. The president's critics call them part of an effort to divert attention from Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
But because the story keeps surfacing and key Republicans are calling for hearings, here is a closer look.
Claim: Clinton played a key role in helping Russia gain control of U.S. uranium supplies.
The Russian state nuclear company, Rosatom, bought Canadian mining company Uranium One in 2010. Uranium One had, and still has, uranium mining rights in the United States.
For that reason, President Barack Obama's administration had to approve the deal. In a unanimous vote, nine U.S. government departments and agencies signed off. All are part of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and included Clinton's State Department.
By all accounts, she was not actively involved. One of her deputies handled the matter, which was not considered controversial because uranium is widely bought and sold around the world for a range of purposes, from nuclear power plant fuel to medical treatments and research.
"It's a commercial market; it's a global market. Companies get bought and sold. Some of the companies that do the buying are controlled by foreign governments," said Matthew Bunn, who heads the Project on Managing the Atom, a nuclear policy research group at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. "That's the world we live in. It's a totally normal purchase."
Claim: Uranium One controls 20 percent of the U.S. uranium supply.
At the time of the 2010 sale, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimated that Uranium One held the rights to about 20 percent of U.S. uranium in the ground. But this figure is misleading.
The Washington Post reports that it is also outdated. It was based on uranium production capacity in 2010, which has since greatly expanded. Uranium One's share of mining rights is now far less than 20 percent of the U.S. total.
What is more, the U.S. is a tiny player in the world uranium market. The U.S. produced 1,126 tons of uranium last year out of global production of more than 62,000 tons, according to the World Nuclear Association. So U.S. production is less than 2 percent of the global total.
Uranium One produces a small and dwindling amount of that U.S. figure. Last year, it mined just 23 tons in the U.S. — about 2 percent of the small U.S. production.
Think of Uranium One's share as 2 percent of 2 percent. Or 0.04 percent of world production.
Some of Uranium One's U.S. uranium has gone to Canada and Europe, according to The Hill newspaper. But there is no evidence that any of it has gone to Russia.
Rosatom's more likely motivation for purchasing Uranium One was to gain access to the company's far larger uranium production in Canada and in Kazakhstan, which borders Russia.
Claim: U.S. national security has been put at risk.
Neither the U.S. nor Russia needs highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. The countries have more than 4,000 deployed or stockpiled weapons each, far more than the rest of the world combined. Both still have leftover stockpiles of highly enriched uranium that date to the Cold War.
"Both the United States and Russia, for some time, have had self-imposed moratoria on the production of weapons-grade nuclear material," said Kingston Reif, director of disarmament at the Arms Control Association in Washington, D.C. "Despite this, both the United States and Russia remain awash in highly-enriched uranium."
Under a program known as Megatons to Megawatts, Russia reduced its excess by dismantling nuclear weapons and sending the blended-down uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants.
"About 10 percent of U.S. electricity was coming from dismantled Russian nuclear warheads that used to be pointed at the United States," said Bunn, who worked on this issue at the White House during President Bill Clinton's administration.
That program expired in 2013, though Russia still sells uranium to U.S. nuclear plants.
Claim: The Clinton Foundation received $145 million in pledges and donations in exchange for the State Department's support of the Russian deal.
Author Peter Schweizer, who worked with Steve Bannon at Breitbart News, first made this claim in a 2015 book called Clinton Cash.
The New York Times said it used Schweizer's work to conduct its own investigation.
PolitiFact also looked into the matter and questioned the $145 million figure, noting that most of the donations and pledges came from Canadian businessman Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton. They were together in Kazakhstan in 2005, on a trip during which Giustra signed a major mining deal with that country, the Times reported.
Two years later, in 2007, Giustra merged his mining company with Uranium One and then sold his shares the same year. This was three years before the Russians bought the company, so it's not clear how Giustra would have benefited from the 2010 deal.
Giustra noted this in a 2015 statement in which he sharply criticized the Times for suggesting that his work with the Clintons was in pursuit of a business favor.
"I am extremely proud of the work that we have done" with the Clintons, he said. "I plan to continue that work long after the harsh glare of this week's media stories has faded."
Aside from Giustra, PolitiFact said its reporting could confirm about $4 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation from Uranium One investors in the years just before and after the 2010 Russian deal.
The Clinton Foundation supports a wide variety of humanitarian projects around the world.
This episode raises the familiar scenario of overlap between the Clinton's private dealings and public actions and the potential for conflicts of interest. Yet a number of Clinton critics and news organizations have looked into the matter and have not presented evidence of wrongdoing.
As the Times concluded in its 2015 story:
"Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation."
Oh, please don't ban him, he is so entertaining!
That's two very different things. I don't see how we could prevent Fake News Seeds.
But there should be no respect, no respect at all, for the seeder. In fact, as I said, I think a Fake News Seeder should be penalized.
Fine. You don't want to respect them, make sure you don't violate the CoC while you're not respecting them. THAT is the bottom line.
You have put your finger on the essential stupidity of the CoC: "respect" is not real, it is formal. The CoC allows any and all behavior, as long as no-no words are not used.
When I said we should not respect a seeder of Fake News, I meant that our opinion of that person should be something like "dirt". But on NT, only words are important, not reality. I would not be allowed to say "So-and-so was a total asshole to have seeded such blatant crap" ... even though everyone knows that it's true.
So you can't debunk any of the actual key facts that are at issue. It's a text book example of how corruption occurs. But you just want to quibble over semantics and a lack of a smoking gun. As if that's how these things work.
We know that if Putin's friends hired one of the Trump kids for 25 million dollars to "consult" and Trump waived sanctions a month later, you'd be flipping your lid. Even if you can't "prove" with a smoking gun that the 25 million dollar payment influenced the decision to waive sanctions, you'd be rightfully incensed. That's what the Clintons did,and that's never been close to rebutted.
Deleted for skirting. D.
When was that?
I can't remember Sean ever posting anything other than Fox News boilerplate.
It is opinion only, on the "experts" part. What, exactly, does this uranium scandal have to do with the Obama administration and the Clintons?
We don't know for sure, and nothing has been debunked.
You and John both seem to have missed the point of Perrie's in-depth discussion and the other comments concerning addressing the story, not insulting other people posting. Must be nice to feel like you don't have to play by the rules.
The nature of conspiracies is to say "what if", but it is not logic or understanding.
Is there something resembling proof that US uranium was given to the Russians in exchange for money paid to the Clintons?
NO.
FBI agents already have an eyewitness and documents to support the claims against hillary.
tick.... tock
You are a good example of the runaway right wing imagination. You couldnt prove what you just said if your life depended on it.
Yyyaaaawwwwnnnnn - Oh look - a rabbit.
Here is the problem with that result.
Many times the faked news will result in some pretty good debates and discussions. Tangents, or arguments about the faked issue CAN at times generate a healthy exchange. Taking down the article would result in those discussions being deleted.
I'm not saying this is the reason so therefore it wont be done. I'm just pointing out a result. Your suggestions have merit, and you should make them when Perrie posts her META calling for CoC updates. That would be a good issue to bring up.
My issue is that obviously fake news is posted in the News and Politics forum. Why couldn't we have a 'Up for debate' forum for 'questionable' seeds. I realize that most that post that crap don't want to admit that it's crap, but such a forum would allow for 'free speech' while upholding the integrity of the News and Politics forum. A mod could MOVE a fake news seed if the seeder refuses to admit that doesn't belong in News and Politics.
Another good suggestion.
So....debunk it with facts, from legitimate sources!
I have, ask Johnathon.
Let's hope tbat Real News can do as well...
This is a dangerous approach. ANYTHING "can" at times generate a healthy exchange. That doesn't excuse "anything".
Oh I'm not excusing it. I'm merely making an observation.
also... many times what has been called fake news has later been found to be fact.
it is fairly easy to label anything one does not want getting out as fake news....
anyone here watchCNN ?
No one rigged any primaries.
and no one named donna gave hillary the debate questions beforehand either.... it is all fake news
hillary never colluded with or paid the russians to produce dirt on trump either.... simply never happened, even though she admitted it.
did you know colluding with and paying a foreign govt to undermine a presidential candidate is not exactly kosher?
never mind, that was rhetorical :)
Donna said they did, or tried to anyway.
Is she just making stuff up?
Like the left wing fake news that the Trump administration colluded with Russia and obstructed justice??
So you believe Donna Brazile? GREAT!
"Trump looks for a daily excuse to distract from his job. No, the primary system wasn't rigged! States control primary ballots,"
"Today's lesson: Being quoted by Donald Trump means being MIS-quoted by Donald Trump. Stop trolling me. #NeverSaidHillaryRiggedElection"
You wanted Fake news to be debunked with facts from reliable sources remember?
You're welcome.
There have been some good ideas on how to handle fake news and it's seeders, but what a waste of time and energy it is dealing with these lies when we could be debating actual news and events. How can we have respect for ourselves and our Newstalker site when these trash articles are up for debate? It cheapens us, and makes us look like fools. It would be nice to be able to be proud of our site and feel good about possibly telling some friends about it, suggesting they check it out. Why should we have to debunk the same old, tired, thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories over and over and over again? Life is short enough as it is!
Ignoring them works well for me.
There you go Steve! Well done!
I usually ignore them too, Steve, but we really shouldn't. It's important to push back on fake news. John Russel is a very valuable member of this site from what I've seen so far.
I dont catch every article seeded and in the short time I've been coming here I've only seen one or two "fake news" style seeds and they got slammed right from the get go.
Personally at this point I dont see this as much of a problem.
If it is, yes it should be dealt with.
Lenny,
As part of what I do here, I check out other sites and I check what they allow and their rules. None of them forbid a single website or news source. And of course I would like our site to be the best when it comes to where we get our news from, that would mean creating lists... and I am not a fan of lists. It smacks of McCarthyism. So, the best way to combat this, is seed more and seed from what you feel we should be looking at. Or follow Steve's directions below. Both work.
I do what Steve does, but like I said, we shouldn't. I don't see ignoring it as being a virtue like you seem to. Without John Russel's efforts I might have left the site by now. I don't even like the guy, particularly, but he provides a desperately needed service here.
Lenny, IF it was common and I saw it as a problem I wouldn't be ignoring it. Like I said earlier, I haven't been here long but I have seen very few what I wold consider "fake news" seeds. I have seen a lot of "trolling" seeds. But only a couple of real BS fake ones.
I didn't get where i am ignoring problems. But I do try to chose my battles wisely. I just dont see much of a real problem here. If I do I'll be bitchin.... lol
ask around...lol
PS: Its early...have a great day !
Obviously your stating your opinion, many have a differing opinion on what he offers. Pray tell tell us what, (in your opinion) valuable service he provides?
Well, you don't have to. That was the function of the "IGNORE" function on NV. It served its purpose. If someone feels the need to prove an article fake or debunked....provide proof from credible and reliable sources....or just move on.
The allegations that Trump colluded with the Russians or obstructed justice is and always has been a conspiracy theory. That Hillary sent and received classified government emails on her private server is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. The "uranium kerfuffle" is still being investigated as what really went on.
I have to remind myself not to waste my time reading your comments.
Yeah, ya don't have to, but you can't let an opportunity to make a snarky or sarcastic comment go by, it appears.
It's a sign or emotionalism and intellectual weakness. Never too late to grow up sir!
When confronted with relentless ignorance one has to make a decision.
I expect that Perrie can easily recognize false grace when it shows its ugly face and she can tell the difference between forthrightness and duplicitousness. The content's intent is the key. It is not that hard to tell the difference between those who intend to inform and discuss and those who merely wish to stir up discontent and anger by seeding outrageous propaganda and fake news often sourced from what are foreign sources. Time will tell though I expect those who celebrated the demise of NV proclaiming that "We Won" regarding not only the disruptioin of what they considered a liberal site but the demise of that forum. It seems to me NT could be a great place to learn some things and enjoy the free expression of ideas if it were not for all the goddamn snakes sniping here trying to cause folks to be misinformed and thus advocate against and worse vote against the best interests of themselves and their country men and women. What is going on here is transparent as cellophane to anyone who has participated on this or other news comment sites for he last decade or so. All the usual suspects and all...
My biggest beef, from a mod standpoint, is the lack of accountability. When someone violates the CoC, knows they violated the CoC, and then whines when they get a purple pen comment. What really surprises me is that it's more from the Conservative side than the Liberal side. When I mod a Liberal, I'm biased (in their eyes). When I mod a Conservative, I'm a turn coat and I'm biased (in their eyes).
I was brought up to own up to my mistakes. And in the Nuclear Navy, Integrity is demanded. You take responsibility for your actions. I know a couple or three conservative guys who had a hard time accepting that they got a CoC. Integrity is what affects my respect for someone.
Interesting, coming from you. Someone who has deleted multiple comments and is very concerned about making sure nobody comments outside your narrowly acceptable boundaries. A little self reflection may be helpful before you cast the blame net.
My comment got the most thumbs up. I win.
(grin)
That's a thumbs up? My mistake I thought it was something completely different. (j/k)