As with almost every other day in the last few weeks, yet another piece of 'evidence' is provided that justifies the creation of a global 'Ministry of Truth' who will set forth the truth for us all so that we don't waste our time thinking for ourselves and running the risk of being mistaken. The latest study analysed the entire history of Twitter to determine 'facts' about 'fake news' - let's explore...
As The Atlantic just reported, a new study claims to have proven that fake news is a massive problem, spreads faster than 'real news' and therefore, presumably, 'we must act' to resolve the problem. As someone who has a long history of using, working with and designing social networks, plus as someone who has learned the hard way, both through academic study and lived experience, that 'voices of authority' are no more likely to be honest than any other voice - I understandably have a lot to say on this.
Real Background
We only need to examine the way that prominent Youtubers have been deleted from Youtube recently for their opinions and thoughts (sometimes including channels with millions of followers and thousands of videos) to know that there are significant entities involved here who want to shut down dissenting voices. If we examine some of those big names who have been ejected, it turns out that they typically don't actually have a common thread in terms of their 'political position', except perhaps to say that they have no problem calling out the mainstream media as being biased and deceptive - plus commonly also identifying (possibly through the scientific method) areas in which the mainstream narrative is criminally incorrect. In other words, some criminals have enough power to attempt to protect themselves by using governments and corporations to do so!! Shock, horror! I know - who would ever have thought that criminals could get into government and corporations?! I mean, I know that the entire human story contains numerous examples of genocides and massive crimes against humanity carried out through the vehicle of government and corporate machinery, but.. Oh.. well.. I guess there is a small chance that this is happening now..
You can review some of my recent posts on Steemit that demonstrate how I have been recently censored on Facebook (with video evidence), plus how radio/chat show host Richie Allen had his account deleted from Youtube recently, plus how Google received a massive fine for criminally delisting competitors (including my own social network at ureka.org). The EU commission upheld that Google was in the wrong, yet it was very difficult to demonstrate this and it took years. Unfortunately, the likes of Richie Allen and myself typically don't have the resources to fight google for years in court. (I have even encountered similar attempts at suppressing dissent from Steemit's own technical manager 'Sneak' - despite me providing scientifically valid data to back up my position).
This New Study
I am not going to go through all the points made in the piece in 'The Atlantic' as there is really no need. Why?
Despite the claims of analysis of massive amounts of data, the study is fundamentally flawed in a truly Orwellian way. While the study claims to be analysing 'fake news' and how it affects us, there is a problem - in order to do this they have to know what is and what is not 'fake news'. Hmm.. but doesn't that mean that they literally have to have a God Like ability to see and know almost everything?! Well, no actually - as it turns out you don't need God when you have snopes.com. I shit you not - the ultimate arbiter of truth according to these 'cough' 'scientists' is Snopes.com and other similar 'fact check' sites. We will examine Snopes in more detail shortly here.
I'm sure that researchers here do not need to be reminded that basing an entire study of 'truth' on the accuracy of specific groups of other researchers' abilities to know 'the truth' is fundamentally flawed. Just because a group of people makes the claim that they are going to research 'challenging topics' to 'get to the truth' does NOT mean that they are accurate in their answers and any student of history and geo-politics knows that even the best intended project is likely to be targeted for manipulation by secret services and other such groups. Oh, what? Did I just suggest a 'conspiracy theory'? Run for the hills! Well, no, actually - I just stated absolute historical record. Don't believe me, ask Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, the German Academic whistleblower who was editor of a top German newspaper and who stated that he was paid for years by the CIA to lie to the world on a grand scale. He also stated that pretty much every other journalist in the industry was also bought off. You could ask him more about it but he died not long after he blew the whistle (I'm sure it was just a coincidence).
Snopes.com
Any site that attempts to 'tell us the truth' should be questioned carefully.. After all, isn't that the whole point of the site existing? Isn't it basically them who are saying that 'there are liars among us all'? So we are obliged to believe NO-ONE and do our own research, right?
A few years ago, Snopes' founder was caught up in a legal battle involving his porn star wife due to.. well..:
In legal papers filed in San Diego Superior Court, they say: 'But while Snopes is built entirely around the concepts of transparency and truth, its founder, Defendant David Mikkelson ('Mikkelson') has engaged in a lengthy scheme of concealment and subterfuge to gain control of the company and to drain its profits.'
Mikkelson carried out 'pervasive fraud' at Snopes and used the accounts to pay for lavish trips and personal items while refusing requests from shareholders to examine his expenditures.
But hey, I'm sure this is a solid backdrop against which to determine whether any given statement from any human ever, is .. true.
I'm sure the fact that Snopes was caught changing it's assessment of a story regarding the safety of Monstanto's GMO products and that Monsanto pays Snopes a large advertising fee are completely unrelated and that Snopes' total inability to screen it's 'fact checkers' to prevent infiltration from - anyone anywhere - is nothing to be concerned about.. right?
Conclusions
It is not until we do our OWN research into subjects BEYOND the mainstream cookie cutter narrative of reality that we will start to uncover the denial that permeates that mainstream narrative. This is a hugely challenging thing for many of us to do because it means looking at numerous extremely evil lies that we have been programmed to believe pretty much since birth. Most of the murders in human history originate from governments - yet we are educated BY those GOVERNMENTS - I'm sure even the most blinkered and 'normal' among us can see how this is a problem. Or at least I would like to be sure, but since I know very well that many of us are so shut down and closed minded that we would deny that we breathe air if we were told to do it - sadly, I know that many will still refuse to see the obvious here.
If we renamed the paper from 'The spread of true and false news online' to 'The spread of things that Snopes says is true or false online.' then we would have a more honest narrative here.
It doesn't matter how many people in 'positions of authority' use their VERSION of 'science' to attempt to 'prove' something, the truth is still the truth and lies are still lies. Not only is this study fatally flawed (just like MANY other studies held up as 'fact') - it appears to not even include a section on any 'conflicts of interests' by it's authors - in other words, we do not know who they are paid by, what grants they have received and what might be motivating them outside of 'integrity' to say what they are saying.
I'll let the ex Vice President of Pfizer, one of the world's largest pharmaceutical corporations have the last words here as he explains how such companies 'buy science' (sell us lies) by infiltrating academia and controlling the narrative:
Wishing you well,
Ura Soul
Vote @ura-soul for Steem Witness!
View My Witness Application Here
