House Republicans Accuse Rep. Adam Schiff of Allowing Colbert Staff Into Capitol

raphjd

It's not spamming because I post separate topics.

He has repeatedly posted the same crap in different threads. I'm mean, @bi4smooth does the same thing, but at least he changes the word on occasion.

As for the news articles, you clown post shit from CNN, MSNBC, Slate, Salon, The Root and countless other fake ass news sources.

Spintendo

@raphjd
CNN MSNBC Slate and Salon are not run by single individuals who operate out of apartment buildings in Macedonia, copying news stories onto their sites in order to get paid for clicks, without even an iota of journalistic cred to back up what they post.

The site resistthemainstream.org checks all of those boxes.

Is this where MSNBC runs there website from? What about CNN, are they located in this building above?

Of course not. But thats where your website is run from (or a building just like it)

You don't dispute that now, because you know now that it's a click farm. I'll bet anything you didnt know that before today. But now you know better.

raphjd

@Spintendo

Again, you are upset because it's a so-called "click farm" that reposts articles from the internet.

You aren't angry because it posts fake news because it doesn't that you can point out.

Spintendo

@raphjd
You hit the nail on the head.... that's exactly right. You said it perfectly.

My concern is that your suggesting links to a click-farm for other users of this forum to click. These Macedonian website operators target conservative Americans with partisan content copied from better-known right-wing websites in the United States. Your links generate advertising revenue every time somebody clicks them.

Do users of this forum understand that is what happens when they click links from resistthemainstream.org? My guess is no, they don't.

The stories you've highlighted here from that website may have been accurate (and that is still a stretch), but the same cannot be said for the thousands of other headlines from that website that you're not posting here. And when the goal is to increase people clicking on these headlines, truth goes out the window. It does if your wanting a paycheck for all those clicks.

raphjd

@Spintendo

Why is this site any different than CNN, USA Today, MSNBC, Slate, Salon, The Root and so many more from the left?

They all post lies, targetted to liberal audiences, for ad revenue.

Without Resist The Mainstream Media, no one outside of a small area of Tennesse would know who Emanuel Samson is. You may have forgotten, he's the black guy who shot up a white church. His story is the same as Dylann Roof's except the rates are reversed.

Countless stories like that get lost because they don't fit the MSM liberal agenda.

Spintendo

@raphjd

That's the difference.... That picture says it all. You know exactly what I mean.

Researchers at Stanford determined Resist The Mainstream is actually run by two individuals in Veles who generate viral stories and profit from advertising revenue using the InfoLink ad service and Google Analytics.

Now that you know, posting additional links here from that site would be you attempting to drive traffic towards their site. Whether or not you choose to disclose that to the forum is you and the site owner's business.

Spintendo

Here is Stanford's report on Resist the Mainstream:

https://www.eipartnership.net/rapid-response/north-macedonian-content-farms

raphjd

@Spintendo

Again, what is the difference between these guys and CNN?

Both make money off of clicks on their site, from ad revenue?

As for the "run by two individuals in Veles who generate viral stories", doesn't MSM try to create viral stories?

You can search the internet based on what they posted to find more info if you distrust them so much.

But since you crying liberals make so many demands of everyone, I guess I'll comply with yet another of your hypocritical demands. I hope we don't see any links to websites that make ad revenue from your side, but of course, we will.

raphjd

@Spintendo said in House Republicans Accuse Rep. Adam Schiff of Allowing Colbert Staff Into Capitol:

Here is Stanford's report on Resist the Mainstream:

https://www.eipartnership.net/rapid-response/north-macedonian-content-farms

So, they collect right-leaning articles from the net and put them on their site, and make money from it.

It's like that Twitter account that collected articles from the internet and reposted them.

It's like how MSM sources their "news" from each other. We see this all the time.

Other than you hate the idea of foreigners making a bit of money, I really don't see what your complaint is. Are you also angry that the BBC, CBC, and ABC make money from American news stories?

I have yet to see a factual claim of disinformation by them. The Candace Owens story, mentioned in the report is (or at least was, at the time) completely true. You can search for the stuff I have posted and find other articles about the topic.

Spintendo

@raphjd

That's the difference. Right there. Those pictures explain themselves.

CNN creates its own journalistic content from hundreds of paid employees. The other site doesn't create its own content, and its revenue pay anywhere from 2 to 5 people.

Which site has relatively good journalistic safeguards and principles with a relatively functioning oversight protocol exercised by an educated staff..... and which site doesn't have all those things?

Youre asking me whats the difference between these two.

You seriously expect me to believe you're that naive?

I don't, and you're not.

raphjd

@Spintendo

MSM have all been caught in lies, some of which have been discussed here.

"Educated" does not mean they aren't liars or agenda-driven.

And YES, your beloved MSM uses each other as sources. We know that from countless stories, but especially when Comey illegally leaked the stuff about so-called Russian collusion.

Jackie of UVA story was exclusive of Rolling Stone, so everyone else sourced from them. Of course, the author of those RS articles was an agenda-driven cunt who had a history of making shit up to suit her agenda. Even after it was proven that it was all a lie, they still kept pushing the narrative.

Countless stories were nothing more than liberal circle jerks by dishonest "journalists".

Spintendo

@raphjd
And yet, none of those examples get their one and only paycheck from InfoLinks.

Cause when Infolinks is your only source of income, the only thing driving any of your actions, the only "God" you worship where the daily figures you watch ferociously from Google Analytics that cause your heart to beat faster and faster and faster when you see the web traffic increased, increased, increased, increased, increased ......more and more and more clicks must get MORE CLICKS!!!.............then you've got problems.

raphjd

@Spintendo

You still can't prove their articles are fake. At best, you can only whine about them collecting and reposting articles from other sources.

I don't see you whining about 23+ articles from a single "journalist" at USA Today.

I don't see you whining about the extremely common practice of health editing.

I don't see you whing about anything MSM does, because they lean the same way you do.

Spintendo

@raphjd

Proving they were fake? -- When you say "fake", what do you mean? Fake in that the headlines werent really written by that website, but were taken from other websites? Or that the stolen headlines weren't real? Or that the stolen headlines you selectively presented here were fake and the others you didn't link to werent fake? There's a whole lot to unpack there, I dont know what you mean.

I was the one who was saying the website was a content / click farm. That was my argument. That argument is the easiest one to prove. Which is why I (and also, the user soapbubble) we were making that argument here in this thread (and 2 other threads I believe).

This other argument you keep trying to shoehorn me into--- supposedly having been made by me-- that the main issue is the headlines are fake....well thats more of a complicated, multi-tiered argument that I'd be foolish to make right off the bat, but that you're just itching for me to assume the role of. Why would I do that?

Content / click farms -- thats the topic here. Let's stay on topic, K?

raphjd

@Spintendo

The articles are true. You can look them up on the internet and find the info on other sites.

Your beloved MSM doesn't like to cover certain types of articles, so they are almost impossible to find out about unless you live locally.

I already mentioned a prime example; Dylan Roof vs Emanuel Samson. Despite the situations being 95% the same, with the only real difference being the race of the shooter, MSM totally ignored Emanuel Samson's racist attack on a white church.

You are butt hurt that I found out about it from a "click farm" not the MSM, but are happy that MSM didn't report on it to protect the liberal agenda.

Your entire argument seems to stem from the fact that I'm getting to see news your "news" outlets refuse to talk about.

You don't like the fact that Emanuel Samson's racially motivated terroristic act didn't stay hidden in small-town Tennessee. Likewise with countless other news items.

It reminds me of Morning Joe's ho (Mika or something) when she said that it's the news' job to control what people think. She's said it twice now, with a few years in between.

Spintendo

Let me ask you a hypothetical:

Let's say there was a plane crash, and lots of people died in what appeared to be a suspicious accident.

Now lets say there are two people following that crash. One of them lives in India. This person writes for a news website in India. They went to college and have followed a career path of journalism. This Indian person, the stories they write about the plane crash are based on information that they have collected themselves from different sources that they have investigated, and they've used what they learned in college to synthesize the information into a narrative that they then publish online to inform their readers.

Now the other person, they live in America, they have a website where the information about the plane crash is published, but the American didnt do any of the leg work involved--- in fact, they took stories that were written by the Indian and they republish them on their American website in order to generate clicks they then get paid for.

My question to you is this: Here on this forum, what type of information are you generally wanting to present, info that youre most comfortable presenting? Would you be more comfortable sharing the links from the Indian person, or from the American one?

Spintendo

And lets say the information about the plane crash is identical... so the questions isnt even about veracity. Lets say its all truthful info identical info.

So the real question is, who do you reward for that info. Because like it or not, when you post a link on this forum, youre rewarding someone.

Who deserves the reward, the recognition? The Indian, or the American?

The question illuminates you and your personal character. Its a clue into how you view questions of personal morality, of right and wrong.

Now lets hear the 500 different ways youll dodge this question, or say "theres no difference!"

raphjd

@Spintendo

When the liberal agenda driven MSM and big tech, actively REFUSE to cover stories that don't match their narrative, then why should I reward them?

Of course, you being a liberal, would reward them for refusing to cover stories (ie; Emanuel Samson and countless others) that don't support the liberal agenda.

USA Today has been caught in quite a few scandals over the last few years, relating to truth and honesty. This is the same with all the MSM.

As AOC loves to remind us, it's better to be morally correct than factually correct.

Spintendo

@raphjd said in House Republicans Accuse Rep. Adam Schiff of Allowing Colbert Staff Into Capitol:

@Spintendo

When the liberal agenda driven MSM and big tech, actively REFUSE to cover stories that don't match their narrative, then why should I reward them?

So you would choose the American in my hypothetical scenario if the Indian failed to cover stories that you thought appropriate. In your mind, that would be fair payback.

People who make no creative efforts of their own to publish content online don't deserve renumeration UNLESS some other person on the other side of the world doesn't cover all the right stories, then the loafers can get paid. Its very George Costanza of you.

I used a plane crash as my scenario. Lets change the story the Indian person writes about and the American person steals for clicks to an investigation of Hillary Clinton.

So in that scenario, the Indian would have then covered a story that you approve of. But according to your own logic YOU'D STILL REWARD THE AMERICAN. Here's how....

The Macedonian content farms are stealing headlines from conservative news sites. You're rewarding the stealers. The real content creators follow your rules, they publish content you like, and you still reward the content farms. You've completely butt-fucked your own logic.

Are you paying attention, or just equivocating again?

raphjd

@Spintendo

Content farms are grerat sources, especially when your beloved MSM and big tech collude to bury and/or ignore stories that don't suit their political agenda.

Once again, Emanuel Samson is a prime example. The white-hating racists at MSM and big tech made sure the world knows about Dylan Roof, while making every possible attempt to make sure no one knows about Emanuel Samson because he's black.

This happens on a regular basis.