[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42023763]This same logic could be used to allow infowars threads to be posted.[/QUOTE]
Thats where encouraging people to post and read more than one source comes in, infowars shit rarely gets posted on other sites unless its a direct c+p job. Basically a two source op rule unless its a breaking story or a foreign story where sources are hard to find.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42023763]This same logic could be used to allow infowars threads to be posted.[/QUOTE]
no because infowars is just a joke site, there is no journalism. It's on a different tier from fox or RT. Fox and RT just have bias. Sometimes large ones.
Can we ban Kotaku and Dailymail too?
[QUOTE=Aman;42023835]no because infowars is just a joke site, there is no journalism. It's on a different tier from fox or RT. Fox and RT just have bias. Sometimes large ones.[/QUOTE]
It's not a joke site.
I'm sorry.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;42023841]Can we ban Kotaku and Dailymail too?[/QUOTE]
Start banning things and soon you just end up with reuters.
[QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;42023493]Can we also get Fox and the Daily Mail banned then? Both establishments make a point of spewing out vitriolic bile.[/QUOTE]
That would take away from the fun of posting on SH.
No matter how shitty RT or Fox News may be, banning it is censorship and is bad. We should spend more time and effort convincing people they're shit news sources rather than blocking it.
I didn't care that much for Dailymail, found it average, until Facepunch pointed out the major bias and stupidity in some very specific articles.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42023867]It's not a joke site.
I'm sorry.[/QUOTE]
I meant it should be treated as a joke site. I know some clowns think it's all true.
[QUOTE=FluD;42022642][IMG]http://facepunch.com/fp/flags/us.png[/IMG] glorious source of everything[/QUOTE]
I'm US and honestly I prefer BBC News or my local stations.
All the national outlets of news in the US have some sort of bias or another.
[editline]30th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=bubbagamer;42023949]No matter how shitty RT or Fox News may be, banning it is censorship and is bad. We should spend more time and effort convincing people they're shit news sources rather than blocking it.
I didn't care that much for Dailymail, found it average, until Facepunch pointed out the major bias and stupidity in some very specific articles.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, I'm OK with Daily Mail or Fox News being posted every so often, but only because SH could do with some comedy every once in a while, and the Onion gets you banned.
[QUOTE=bubbagamer;42023949]No matter how shitty RT or Fox News may be, banning it is censorship and is bad. We should spend more time and effort convincing people they're shit news sources rather than blocking it.
I didn't care that much for Dailymail, found it average, until Facepunch pointed out the major bias and stupidity in some very specific articles.[/QUOTE]
It clogs up the forum with shitty threads.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42023991]It clogs up the forum with shitty threads.[/QUOTE]
as opposed to...
[QUOTE=bubbagamer;42023949]No matter how shitty RT or Fox News may be, banning it is censorship and is bad. We should spend more time and effort convincing people they're shit news sources rather than blocking it.
I didn't care that much for Dailymail, found it average, until Facepunch pointed out the major bias and stupidity in some very specific articles.[/QUOTE]
Banning bad news sources and requiring that people go get the same story elsewhere isn't censorship any more than keeping quack theories out of scientific conferences is censorship.
Having standards isn't censorship. RT shouldn't be banned because we don't like their attitude, they should be banned because they publish factually inaccurate propaganda that has no relation to actual news.
[QUOTE=bubbagamer;42023949]No matter how shitty RT or Fox News may be, banning it is censorship and is bad[/QUOTE]
Normally I'd agree but the two sites manipulate facts and distort news, that's incredibly bad, especially for places that are supposed to be reporting [I]factual[/I] events and go as far as to obnoxiously lampoon reporting standards by having slogans like "fair and balanced"
[QUOTE=The golden;42023354]Intentionally over-sensationalize or poorly write articles to attract negative attention which feeds their ad revenue. They've published many articles that are just jaw-droppingly factually incorrect or incredibly biased to bait a negative response.[/QUOTE]
While that is very true, Gawker is a good site for news sources, because they link to them. And they provide all the weird/interesting news, which other sites don't.
But they are fucking terrible because their articles are more or less opinion pieces.
Some choice quotes from the reddit community
[QUOTE]This is obviously censorship.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]I WANT to read dissenting views - especially when it comes to politics and news. How the hell are we supposed to fix our problems unless we know that a problem exists?
As far as I'm concerned, RT is doing the American public a favor by being critical and helping us find the problems that need to be fixed.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Authoritarian Moderation: It's the American way.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The major subreddits of Reddit have been coopted.
Let's all stop pretending they're not.
These shenanigans by macarthur are also intended to divert attention from the REAL vote manipulation going on here. (by macarthur and his ilk)
Just like the movies post.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]I like RT for the fact they talk about stories that CNN FOX OR MSBC would never dare to. Plus they are huge supporters of Edward Snowden, Assange and Bradley Manning. Also they constantly rip on the banks for frauding the world and the American taxpayer. Of course they are biased but watch a few of their shows and I promise u its better than what mainstream media presents.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Agreed. He is a cock sucker[QUOTE]We demand his resignation as a MOD ![/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
There were some actually good ones though:
[QUOTE]Stop perpetuating the myth that reddit is full of worthwhile people who understand shit. This site is full of people who cannot think for themselves. Think of all the sensationalist garbage that gets to the front page that is rebunked in the first post. The site is a huge circlejerk.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Redditors will use any source they can as long as it fits their narrative. Blogs without sources, state-run Chinese newspapers, fairy tales, etc.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;42024086]Normally I'd agree but the two sites manipulate facts and distort news, that's incredibly bad, especially for places that are supposed to be reporting [I]factual[/I] events and go as far as to obnoxiously lampoon reporting standards by having slogans like "fair and balanced"[/QUOTE]
Then you can proceed in banning CNN aswell and stick with Reuters / AFP, I can't think of many websites not being biased. Even if it's on a tiny scale, they pretty much all do.
Oh yeah, BBC. That's it.
[QUOTE=kr1f333;42024127]Some choice quotes from the reddit community
There were some actually good ones though:[/QUOTE]
Wow it's almost as bad as /pol/
lets also ban BBC World News, they're spreading Chinese propoganda
[sp] you know that its sarcasm [/sp]
[QUOTE=kr1f333;42024127]Some choice quotes from the reddit community
There were some actually good ones though:[/QUOTE]
You missed all the quotes about how its all a Zionist conspiracy and the mods are being coerced by the New World Order.
I like a good heavily biased shitty news source. Decent entertainment at times.
[quote]
Redditors will use any source they can as long as it fits their narrative. Blogs without sources, state-run Chinese newspapers, fairy tales, etc.
[/quote]
Sounds a lot like Facepunch.
reddit news are fucking awful anyways
its usually extremely sensationalist piece with a baiting title that makes a certain group look like devils that clawed their ways out of hell to destroy everything
then the most upvoted comment is the one that disproves it entirely
repeat cycle
I am all for banning RT as long as Fox News and Daily Mail get the same treatment.
[QUOTE=Saxon;42022607]Glad people finally realize how bad it is after all these years :v:
If they want daily Russian Propaganda, no one is stopping them from adding it to an RSS feed or something.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, we want US and European propaganda ONLY on these forums.
[QUOTE=The golden;42023056]I would like to also nominate GawkerMedia sites for bannage.[/QUOTE]
Gawker isn't nearly as manipulative over important current events ask Fox or RT, they just publish bad video game articles and people on FP get mad at them.
We all get that RT tries to make the US look bad, and make Russia look like a superhero country. All state-sponsored propaganda in the international community does this.
That said, most people don't seem to like it only because it says things that are (intentionally) unpleasant. Does anyone have one example of them simply making up a story or spreading factual inaccuracies? It's like the GMO and Monsanto shit again, you guys just don't want to be associated with conspiracy theorists because in your mind the world is a perfect place filled with bubblegum sunshine clouds and no conspiracies ever actually happen. You guys would rather associate with actual conspirators than be associated with anyone who dares accuse our glorious leaders of being greedy or corrupt or murdering Michael Hasting, you guys prove that to me time and time again. Yeah guys, being vain douchebags is way better than actual critical thinking.
How about instead of banning sources, we add a requirement that you need at least two sources?
[QUOTE=The golden;42023354]Intentionally over-sensationalize or poorly write articles to attract negative attention which feeds their ad revenue. They've published many articles that are just jaw-droppingly factually incorrect or incredibly biased to bait a negative response.[/QUOTE]
can we also ban kotaku then?
[QUOTE=Swebonny;42024626]How about instead of banning sources, we add a requirement that you need at least two sources?[/QUOTE]
I'm wondering what the point of publishing the other would serve in that case.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;42024626]How about instead of banning sources, we add a requirement that you need at least two sources?[/QUOTE]
Why not have just one reputable one?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
