Can we test it?
What result does it give for conservapedia?
Academics in the US and UK have created a machine-learning tool for predicting when newly registered internet domains will be used to spread false information, in the hope these sites can be blocked or shut down before they pollute online communication channels. In a recently published working paper, "Real-Time Prediction of …
The problem isn't identifying the fake site, the problem is getting that information into the news bubble the GOP put their viewers into.
The Antifa.com Russian site, and the Russian twitter bots doing the Yang of Trumps "Antifa are organized domestic terrorists" Ying. The 2020 Trump-Russia double act where everyone was supposed to vote Trump out of fear of that "chimera Antifa", Russia military intelligence, made for him. Identifying the fake Russian sites and twitter accounts is not the problem, getting that information to the people who watch nothing but Fox News and OAN echoing that Russian propaganda is the problem.
Fox News ran attack piece after attack piece, some from the Russians, some from the Republican, some I wasn't sure if there was any difference between the two. You can do a detailed analysis of it, but if you can't convey that information to people in simple ways and pop that bubble then they'll never know they've been duped. Who exactly paid Rudy Guilliani for his services as Trump's lawyer?? Trump or the Russians?
QAnon: Russian, 8Chan GOP? Who knows for sure. Brad Parscale might know.
IMHO I would like Brad Parscale to do a tell all book. I'm sure it would be an eye opener, and could quite simply redeem him, given they're accusing him of 'misspending' the PAC money on himself (or more plausibly as others have suggested, laundering it on Trump's behalf back into Trump's family businesses). He might want to do that before they turn the narrative machine against him. There is no honor among thieves.
IMHO, when faced with a gaslighting liar, the lies come thick and fast, you cannot debunk every lie, because before you finish debunking one, the next lie has already been delivered. Simply pick one or two examples that are clear and simple to debunk, then label all the rest lies too. After a while people will assume everything he says is a lie. The gaslighting stops working.
There will always be a million of these fake sites, they will appear and disappear before you can debunk them. Pick a sample and paint the rest with the sample. It will stop the gaslighting.
Another way to tackle the liars is to pick out the projection lies. Explain how those are projection. How he's actually guilty of the crime he's accusing others of, then after many examples or projection lies, it becomes clear, everytime he makes another false allegation, he's actually making a confession. People no longer hear the false accusations, and instead hear the confession.
If Trump makes an allegation, it's actually a confession.
Then there's the slow walk, a myriad of tiny steps. Where things that seemed insane now seem normal. Bit by bit the boundary is moved till major crime become small oopsies, and Republicans talk openly of ending democracy using their newly installed puppet judges.
The strategy I suggest for that, is to describe the end case for that. The military on the streets killing protestors, the judges who did it, forced to live in bunkers in fear from the angry voteless masses. Show them their future, how much it sucks without democracy. How those small steps lead to that end case, so they don't take those small steps. Pop their Fox News lie bubble. Make the deaths real, show them the sick person whose healthcare they will take away and make it clear to everyone that *their* choice, kills *that* person.
Democracy, nothing else, we the people, we the voters.
You see how "Proud Boys" are infighting? That'll be about who controls the money, not 'honor' or some such shit. They will be paid, there will be money involved, that money will be diminishing, they have no future now, they fight for the last of the money.
You may also notice that Trumps #'iwanttostealthevote' projection fundraiser is funneling lots of donations to his PAC not to the legal fund. Again notice the lack of money, this is typical of a broke person. Forbes, I suspect your list of his known debts is only the list of his disclosed debt, the tip of the iceberg. His actions suggest financial problems. You don't scurry around skimming money here and there if you have 2.5 billion dollars generating income. You would have an insane surplus of cash. Go dig deeper. You found an extra half a billion debt, so go dig deeper.
There is no point in us simply telling Trump voters because they are certain we are Satan worshipping pedo baby eaters. They will not believe us or any web site we point them at. The first step is to meet one of them regularly in the real world. After a decade or two that one Trump voter might notice the absence of baby bones in the rubbish and wonder if we really do eat babies. A decade later he may build up the courage to come round to dinner and notice the absence of pentagrams. After another few years there is the possibility of getting trusted half as much as the people saying we abuse children. Only after getting that crumb of trust is there a possibility that something we say will not immediately be discounted as fake news.
This method has actually worked but it is slow and labour intensive. If you find anything better I would love to hear it.
Something I think we should try is to not respond to anything in anger. We see trolls and fake accounts from the Russian's Internet research agency and respond in kind to them and to real people we mistake for trolls. They see false flag libruls and assume we are just as insane. Both sides start shouting at each other and do the troll's work of ending reasonable discussion.
Never mind if the allegation is true or not, one thing is clear, it's a partisan site, as in "not objective", since it starts with a conclusion. You don't even need to read it, you already know what it will be trying to tell you.
So, if you know nothing about the subject and are looking for information to help you make up your mind, you can already reject that site as a source of reliable, objective information.
The only use of such a site would be as an echo chamber where people can be confirmed in their per-existing opinions, and meet like-minded people to express their collective indignation without being bothered by discordant opinions.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021