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

[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.

[Spintendo]

@raphjd LoL

Essentially, your saying "It's okay what I did here posting these links, because someone doing something over there made It ok."

If no one knows about emmanuel samson, then how do you know about him?

[Spintendo]

@raphjd You know im gonna have to call bullshit here, because when i Do a google search on emmanul samson, whose links come up? NBC News, USA Today, NYTimes.

I THOUGH YOU SAID MSM SUPRESSED THIS INFO. OMG the supression must have ended JUST RIGHT NOW.

ITS MaGiCal!!!

[Spintendo]

@raphjd

Even though this nytimes article is like 5 years old, they must have just posted it now online

You said MSM supressed this AND you only said that like 3 minutes ago. that is so eerie.

From your keystrokes to the NYTimes website. its truly magical or maybe you lied when u said supressing, (sorry, not lied, JUST completely EXAGGERATE in order to sustain your BS argument) gee I wonder which one it is

[Spintendo]

Which means that ding ding ding, from now on, whenever you say "MSM supresses things" well were gonna have to take that with a grain of salt.

fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, well u know the drill

[raphjd]

@Spintendo

Have you thought that I might have heard about him via a content farm? I hope you aren't that delusional. I don't live in Tennessee so it would be odd that I would have seen the local coverage, which is where I originally heard about it.

Compare the coverage of Dylan Roof vs Emanuel Samson. Then tell me they treated both stories equally.

FFS, they still mention Dylan Roof constantly as part of their "white supremacy" narrative.

Honest question; Did you know who Dylann Roof was before this discussion? Did you know Emanuel Samson before this discussion?

My bet is that of course, you knew who Dylann Roof is, but you had to google Emanuel Samson.