Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: Take Down of Alt News - Alex Jones, Mike Adams & Future Events - Pushback by "Mainstream News"

  1. #1
    Retired Member Australia
    Join Date
    12th April 2015
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    257
    Thanks
    2,992
    Thanked 1,605 Times in 252 Posts

    Take Down of Alt News - Alex Jones, Mike Adams & Future Events - Pushback by "Mainstream News"

    So much info is flying around at the moment that it is hard to keep up with so I'm going to have to post mainly links for anyone interested to click through & read for themselves.

    On 22nd Feb 2017 Huffington Post posted the article titled:


    Who Is Alex Jones And Why Is Donald Trump Speaking To Him On The Phone?

    It is a long article with many photos & video clips so it is best to read / see the whole thing in its entirety but here are a few excerpts:



    3) He Propagates Actual Fake News

    Not the Trump-variety "I don't like the sound of this so I'll call it FAKE NEWS' fake news, actual, bona-fide make believe.

    Firstly, there are the conspiracy theories mentioned earlier.

    9/11 was an inside job - check (he was even executive producer of Loose Change).

    The Sandy Hook Massacre was "completely fake" - check.

    The Moon landings were faked - check.

    Lady GaGa is a Satanist - check.

    The list goes on. However, Jones isn't just partial to the old classics, Infowars also indulges in the more modern variety of fake news to push agendas, so much so it appears on lists of discredited websites.

    Almost forgot, don't drink the water...


    5) Infowars Has Been Cited As Inspiration In Actual Shootings


    There are at least seven examples of Infowars fans committing shootings, some fatal.

    The most recent centred around the absurd PizzaGate conspiracy, that members of the Democratic party linked to Hillary Clinton were running a sex trafficking ring from a fast food outlet in Washington DC.

    The completely false theory was heavily pushed by Jones on Infowars leading to fan, Edgar Maddison Welch, popping down to investigate himself armed with an AR-15 automatic rifle.

    Thankfully no one was hurt in the incident.

    Oh, did we mention Jones is a bit on the paranoid side?

    You have probably got the drift where this is heading by now but here is the link to the full article :

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...7b5?yptr=yahoo


    .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............................................



    Erin Elizabeth of Health Nut News posted on 22nd Feb 2017

    http://www.healthnutnews.com/google-...0-pages-index/

    Google blacklists Natural News… removes 140,000 pages from its index…



    .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .........................................

    http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-02-2...to-beware.html

    Breaking: Mike Adams and Alex Jones Taken Down by Google / CIA Prior to Big Event: Trump Needs to Beware

    Thursday, February 23, 2017 by: Mike Adams


    (Natural News) Late last night, I recorded an emergency interview with Dave Hodges of The Common Sense Show. In that 45-minute interview,
    I revealed why I think the Google / CIA “take down” of InfoWars and Natural News is a prelude to a massive event being planned to take out President Trump.

    This morning, Hodges posted the following story at this original link on his website: (I have added one clarification note, but the rest is all original from Dave Hodges)

    NEW: Sign this White House petition NOW to halt Google’s outrageous censorship of Natural News, InfoWars and other independent media publishers.

    The censorship of the Independent Media has begun in earnest by Jeff Bezos and Google.

    On my last radio show (2/19), Mike Adams revealed that he was contacted and was told “We will pay you $50,000 to provide us with damaging information against Alex Jones. If you do not help us, we will destroy you”.

    In the PM on February 22, 2017, Mike Adams reached out to me and informed me that Google’s search engines have removed all 140,000 pages of content from Natural News (www.naturalnews.com). If the reader puts Natural News in the Google search engine, it comes back as Natural.News. This is Mike’s back up site which is a shell of his original site.

    Given the time proximity between the attempt to blackmail Mike Adams and Google’s takedown of one of one of the biggest websites in the Independent Media, it is too suspicious to be considered to be a mere coincidence. It is clear from just the circumstantial evidence, that entities representing Google tried to blackmail Mike Adams into providing damning information about Alex Jones and then when Mike did not respond, they took him down.

    In the same time frame, Alex Jones lost $3 million in Google advertising revenue which serves to validate the Mike Adams’ claim that he was indeed blackmailed in an attempt to destroy Alex Jones. [Note from Adams: This was an AdRoll decision against InfoWars, and AdRoll is closely associated with Google.]

    Please notice that I have chosen my words very carefully! I am not saying that Google, itself, or Bezos, himself, are DIRECTLY responsible for these actions against Jones and Adams, beyond the censorship. I said entities representing Google interests are responsible for what will follow this round of censorship. Now, this does not take Bezos off the hook as the buck stops with him. I know, you are saying Dave, get to the point.

    I recently published information that showed that Google’s owner and now the owner of the Washington (com) Post had entered into a $600 million dollar deal with the CIA and indirectly with 16 other intelligence agencies. In my opinion, and in the opinion of my sources who have done business at this level, Mike Adams and Alex Jones are both victims of a CIA hit orchestrated in conjunction with Deep State and in this instance, that would be the Washington (com) Post.

    Why Would the CIA and the Washington Post Target Adams and Jones?

    Many will think, for example, that Adams was targeted because of his fine work in exposing the dangers associated with vaccines which is big business for many of the elite (eg Bill Gates). However, Mike has been exposing this information for years without suffering these kinds of illegal intimidation and anti-trust actions by Google. What do Alex and Mike have in common that would cause these people to act with such reckless abandon? The answer can be summed up in one word, Pizzagate.

    One must consider the fact that both Alex Jones and Mike Adams have been among the leaders in exposing Pizzagate and linking this heinous criminal enterprise with very prominent people. Names are beginning to be named and no doubt, Mike Adams and Alex Jones would be among the first to strike blows in this arena by naming prominent politicians. We fully know that we are days and weeks away from these revelations. The Common Sense Show is beginning to receive names of the participants.

    What has happened to Mike and Alex is damage control, a killing of the messenger. The criminal left is desperate. There is no false flag that these animals will not engage in.

    Another Related Motive

    In my recent interview with Mike (2/23), he suggested that this is also a silencing of the Independent Media prior to a very big event. This will likely be an event that the Deep State cannot allow any opposition to if they are to hoodwink the public.

    Please keep in mind that the Trump/Session forces are closing in on Pizzagate organizers and participants. The left is desperate. Trump cannot be allowed to continue with this investigation. The only way to stop this bulldog of justice is to do to him what was done to JFK. Mike Adams, myself and my best source believe that an assassination attempt is coming. The Independent Media cannot be allowed to be questioning the “official narratives”. In 1963, when JFK was murdered, there was no Independent Media around to question the official lies coming out of the Warren Commission. In 2017, the Deep State cannot allow any form of Independent Media to ask any questions and cast doubt upon the lies that will be fed to the American people because, as we can anticipate, Trump’s assassin will be the old familiar theme of a lone nut who has a diary stating what he was going to do and of course, just like Lee Harvey Oswald, he will be murdered, himself, to obscure the true nature of the false flag event.

    Conclusion

    The recent actions by the CIA and Google serve to inhibit any Pizzagate prosecution at the highest levels of corporate and political power. To ensure the investigations stop, the Trump administration must be neutered and the best way to do that would be to cut the head off of the snake and that means to assassinate Donald Trump. This is their only play. Protests, riots and incessant media lies have not derailed the Trump machine. We are witnessing the absolute desperation of the Deep State and Mike Adams and Alex Jones are caught up in the continued concealment of heinous crimes of prominent people protected by the Deep State.

    No doubt that more Google takedowns are coming. The answer for this is for the general public to all open a website. It can be done for free. You do not have to write anything or possess any technical skills. Simply republish and credit the Independent Media Sources on your site. In this manner, Google’s censorship of the truth will not be effective.

    America, the time to act is NOW!

    Please make this interview with Mike Adams go viral.

  2. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to RealityCreation For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (26th February 2017), Amanda (6th March 2017), Dreamtimer (25th February 2017), Elen (25th February 2017), Fred Steeves (28th February 2017), GCS1103 (25th February 2017), Gio (25th February 2017), Maggie (25th February 2017), modwiz (25th February 2017), Myst (25th February 2017)

  3. #2
    Retired Member Australia
    Join Date
    12th April 2015
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    257
    Thanks
    2,992
    Thanked 1,605 Times in 252 Posts
    At this same time the following info was being released about CNN Since the posts are short I have posted them in full.


    http://victuruslibertas.com/2017/02/...r-leaks-to-vl/ - Posted on February 22, 2017 by Admininstrator[

    LATEST LEAK – From CNN

    We received an email tonight from an unconfirmed CNN insider. Since we JUST received this information, we have not had time to fully vet everything, but we are currently working on confirming the source.

    What this insider has told us is:

    John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton and other republicans are in regular contact with Wolf Blitzer and Tapper, leaking negative info on Trump.

    The talking points against Trump are handed down by Jeff Zucker, and his lapdog is Brian Stelter. Everyone here is mad as hell at being accused of pushing fake news. But that is what they do.

    The insider claims on Sunday (2/19/17), the order came down to smear Trump with anti-semitic accusations. The insider says “They decide what subject to smear Trump with and it’s always Zucker
    telling Stelter – and Stelter works with Wolf, Cuomo, and Tapper, and sometimes Gloria is consulted.”

    Our unconfirmed insider claims what they (CNN) always discuss off camera is PizzaGate. CNN treats it like fake news, but they are all scared of it.
    Our insider claims Anderson Cooper was seeing an 18 year old man in NYC not too long ago and was terrified this would get out.

    According to the source, as of the past week, they are frantically worried about the James O’Keefe leaks, and are wanting to temporarily focus on smearing him, to prevent him from crippling CNN.

    According to the insider, “Chuck Schumer has been really active – calling CNN at all hours and demanding to speak to Wolf. Schumer is always asking if there is news on Anthony Wiener and his laptop.
    Everyone here knows Chuck Schumer is a pedophile.”

    The insider claims they have overheard conversations where someone heard Jeff Zucker tell Brian that if the

    ‘Schumer thing leaks, it’s over!’ We are not even allowed to mention Podesta, or PizzaGate, but that’s all everyone discusses here. It’s one big cover up.

    The insider has offered to send us photos of the memos and notes that are used during the meetings.
    .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...........

    http://victuruslibertas.com/2017/02/...esponsibility/ - Posted on February 23, 2017 by Admininstrator

    The Genius of O’Keefe

    Let me explain to you how much of a genius James O’Keefe is. James O’Keefe has now provided an incentive for every low level news employee in America to have a chance at the whistleblower’s hall of fame. Let that sink in…

    Basically, O’Keefe just went full bounty hunter on the Mainstream Media.

    Now, because of James O’Keefe, every journalist in the land is on notice and risks exposure if they fabricate stories, manipulate the public for the benefit of war mongering elites, or if they purposely refuse to cover REAL NEWS like PEDO-GATE, the public is the new Truth Warrior.!

    We will interrogate you- The Media. We will vet you for truth, because you forgot your job as a free press. You sold your souls to the elites and have been bought and paid for! Was it worth it? You decided to hoodwink The People. You decided the rape and selling of our children was a story you would purposely cover up. You forgot that you were suppose to act in the Public’s interest!

    The Origin of Project Veritas

    Now, lets look at Project Veritas. O’Keefe started posting a couple of weeks ago, telling us he had lots of secret tape that would expose the “fake news” creators. Two days ago, Hannity asked James what news channel was being exposed. O’Keefe pretty much said, ‘The one Trump talks about.’ Yep folks, the king of #VeryFakeNews – CNN !

    This morning, O’Keefe delivered 119 hours of audio taken from a secret leaker called Miss X, who worked for CNN in 2009. Then O’Keefe declared a $10,000 reward for any leaker who delivered recordings from MSM newsrooms – legally, with the caveat that the tapes reveal media manipulation, lies, collusion, etc.

    Now, imagine what it’s like in every newsroom in America today! Every underpaid production assistant, key grip, camera man and janitor could be $10,000 richer for capturing and delivering evidence of MSM fraud. Suddenly, the walls have ears. The elites have weaponized news against us for years… and now its time for an army of whistleblowers to expose the weapons of mass deception. James O’Keefe just made outlaws of the lying media, worthy of a bounty, and since this morning’s announcement- Project Veritas has reported a ton of inside leakers already sending in damning evidence that prove the newsrooms are corrupt, filthy swamps in need of draining and the lower the water level gets, the more these venomous leeches are revealed. !

    WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE!
    .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..................

    http://victuruslibertas.com/2017/02/...-leaker-to-vl/

    EXCLUSIVE!!! MORE Inside Information from CNN Leaker to VL!!

    Posted on February 24, 2017 by Admininstrator


    Our confirmed CNN leaker is giving us more information!

    The leaker told us today that Shep Smith, from FOX has been calling CNN because he is angling for a job with CNN. Shep Smith, Don Lemon and Cooper Anderson all
    “hang out in a circle that enjoys teenage boys”, according to our source. That is hear-say from our source, by the way. The leaker has never actually seen direct evidence of this, only heard talk of it from others inside the studio.

    According to the source, Shep Smith frequently calls CNN and gives them leads. Our source says, “FOX would freak if they knew how much FOX folks (employees of FOX) give CNN personnel inside info on Fox.”


    Our source then goes on to talk about Alan Dershowitz also known as ‘AD’ at CNN. Dershowitz is the lawyer who defended Jeff Epstein during his pedophilia charges.

    Our source claims, “All the sudden” Dershowitz is in constant contact with members of CNN and the source says the mood is very tense.


    Our leaker claims, “Everyone here is upset Trump is going to go after Jeff Epstein and expose all the people who have been to his Island, and that includes some of CNN’s biggest contacts.”

    This is getting ugly fast. Our source tells us the CNN Producer is currently on the phone to New York Times newspaper to promote the idea that Pedophilia is a disorder, not a criminal issue.
    And we have seen that cropping up more and more lately in the MSM.

    We must stay vigilant! We cannot back down! Pedophilia is a CRIME and it is SICK!



    I’m sorry for the late reply. I’ve sent James this data just now, as CNN’s pushed us all like slaves lately. They promised a lot of us that we’ll have the next week off. I will send copies of memos asap, but I also apologize about the tardiness in my responses. They’re pushing a major agenda shortly, and all hands must be on deck. Thank you for your patience.

    Godspeed, Victurus.

  4. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to RealityCreation For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (26th February 2017), Amanda (6th March 2017), Dreamtimer (25th February 2017), Elen (25th February 2017), GCS1103 (25th February 2017), Gio (25th February 2017), Greenbarry (26th February 2017), Maggie (25th February 2017), modwiz (25th February 2017), Myst (25th February 2017)

  5. #3
    Senior Member Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,644
    Thanks
    4,968
    Thanked 12,015 Times in 2,615 Posts
    Looks like this is the official response from Google concerning 'Natural News":

    http://searchengineland.com/natural-...ke-news-269998

    And it looks like this is what Alex Jones was talking about concerning his advertising:

    While Google has stated they will crack down on fake news, they have never stated they would remove web sites. The primary way they will fight fake news is by removing Google’s Ad campaigns from those sites. The real reason Natural News was banned is due to a Google Webmaster violation. Google has rules in place that must be followed by all websites.
    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2017/...for-fake-news/

  6. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (26th February 2017), Amanda (6th March 2017), Dreamtimer (25th February 2017), Elen (26th February 2017), GCS1103 (25th February 2017), modwiz (25th February 2017), Myst (26th February 2017), RealityCreation (25th February 2017)

  7. #4
    Retired Member Australia
    Join Date
    12th April 2015
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    257
    Thanks
    2,992
    Thanked 1,605 Times in 252 Posts
    Thanks for the link to mediabiasfactcheck Fred.


    I also just saw a comment my last night from another blog where they reported
    Google is changing many of its search engine parameters and one of the things that will get a site "de-ranked" in searches is links that use "HTTP" instead of the encrypted browser link "HTTPS" (the "S" stands for secure - which it is... sort of...). Sites that have the open links are de-ranked. [My] blog has over 4000 postings and I do not have the time to go through each of them and update all the links just to please Google's search engine requirements. So I am starting fresh with a new blog, and ad revenue generally mostly comes from recent postings.
    So it looks like a lot of sites may find this an issue.

    The issue of Google and FB now determining what is fake news though is in my opinion, very open to bias and manipulation, if the sources & info quoted in Wikipedia is correct. I am aware that Wikipedia itself is not an unbiased source but it was all I could find on a quick search re how Google defines "fake news" in Google search at the moment.



    Fact-checking websites and journalists

    For more details on this topic, see FactCheck.org, PolitiFact.com, and Snopes.com.

    (I do not regard Snopes.com as a credible or reliable source - I haven't had time to check out the other 2 mentioned so I don't know how impartial or reliable they are) All bolding is mine.

    Logo of PolitiFact

    PolitiFact.com was praised by rival fact-checker FactCheck.org and recommended as a resource to debunk fake news sites.

    Fact-checking websites FactCheck.org,[c] PolitiFact.com,[d] and Snopes.com,[e] authored guides on how to respond to fraudulent news.[4][136][137] FactCheck.org advised readers to check the source, author, date, and headline of publications.[136] They recommended their colleagues Snopes.com, The Washington Post Fact Checker,[f] and PolitiFact.com.[136] FactCheck.org admonished consumers to be wary of confirmation bias.[136] PolitiFact.com used a "Fake news" tag so readers could view all stories Polifact had debunked.[137] Snopes.com warned readers social media was used as a harmful tool by fraudsters.[4] The Washington Post's "The Fact Checker" manager Glenn Kessler wrote all fact-checking sites saw increased visitors during the 2016 election cycle.[139] Unique visitors to The Fact Checker increased five-fold from the 2012 election.[139] Will Moy, director of London-based fact-checker Full Fact, said debunking must take place over a sustained period to be effective.[139] Full Fact worked with Google to help automate fact-checking.[140]

    FactCheck.org former director Brooks Jackson said media companies devoted increased focus to the importance of debunking fraud during the 2016 election.[138] FactCheck.org partnered with CNN's Jake Tapper in 2016 to examine the veracity candidate statements.[138] Angie Drobnic Holan, editor of PolitiFact.com, cautioned media companies chiefs must be supportive of debunking, as it often provokes hate mail and extreme responses from zealots.[138] In December 2016, PolitiFact announced fake news was its selection for "Lie of the Year".[141][32] PolitiFact explained its choice for the year: "In 2016, the prevalence of political fact abuse – promulgated by the words of two polarizing presidential candidates and their passionate supporters – gave rise to a spreading of fake news with unprecedented impunity."[32] PolitiFact called fake news a significant symbol of a culture accepting of post-truth politics.[141]

    Google CEO comment and actions
    See also: Criticism of Google
    Google CEO Sundar Pichai
    Google CEO Sundar Pichai said it is possible fake news affected the 2016 election.

    In the aftermath of the 2016 U.S. election, Google and Facebook, faced scrutiny regarding the impact of fake news.[142] The top result on Google for election results was to a fake site.[143] "70 News" had fraudulently written an incorrect headline and article that Trump won the popular vote against Clinton.[22][23][142] Google later stated that prominence of the fake site in search results was a mistake.[144] By 14 November, the "70 News" result was the second link shown when searching for results of the election.[142] When asked shortly after the election whether fake news influenced election results, Google CEO Sundar Pichai responded: "Sure" and went on to emphasize the importance of stopping the spread of fraudulent sites.[145] On 14 November 2016, Google responded to the problem of fraudulent sites by banning such companies from profiting on advertising from traffic through its program AdSense.[26][27][142] Google previously had a policy for denying ads for dieting ripoffs and counterfeit merchandise.[146] Google stated upon the announcement they would work to ban advertisements from sources that lie about their purpose, content, or publisher.[147][148] The ban is not expected to apply to news satire sites like The Onion, although some satirical sites may be inadvertently blocked under the new system.[142]

    Facebook deliberations
    See also: Criticism of Facebook
    Blocking fraudulent advertisers
    Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
    Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg specifically recommended fact-checking site Snopes.com.

    One day after Google took action, Facebook decided to block fake sites from advertising there.[27][142] Facebook said they would ban ads from sites with deceptive content, including fake news, and review publishers for compliance.[147] These steps by both Google and Facebook intended to deny ad revenue to fraudulent news sites; neither company took actions to prevent dissemination of false stories in search engine results pages or web feeds.[26][149] Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg called the notion that fraudulent news impacted the 2016 election a "crazy idea"[150][151] and denied that his platform influenced the election.[152] He stated that 99% of Facebook's content was neither fake news nor a hoax.[153] Zuckerberg said that Facebook is not a media company.[154] Zuckerberg advised users to check the fact-checking website Snopes.com whenever they encounter fake news on Facebook.[155][156]

    Top staff members at Facebook did not feel simply blocking ad revenue from fraudulent sites was a strong enough response, and they made an executive decision and created a secret group to deal with the issue themselves.[150][151] In response to Zuckerberg's first statement that fraudulent news did not impact the 2016 election, the secret Facebook group disputed this notion, saying fake news was rampant on their website during the election cycle.[150][151] The secret task force included dozens of Facebook employees.[150][151]

    Response
    Facebook faced criticism after its decision to revoke advertising revenues from fraudulent news providers, and not take further action.[157][158] After negative media coverage including assertions that fraudulent news gave the 2016 U.S. presidential election to Trump, Zuckerberg posted a second time about it on 18 November 2016.[157][158] The post was a reversal of his earlier comments on the matter where he had discounted the impact of fraudulent news.[158] Zuckerberg said there it was difficult to filter out fraudulent news because he desired open communication.[157] Measures considered and not implemented by Facebook included adding an ability for users to tag questionable material, automated checking tools, and third-party confirmation.[157] The 18 November post did not announce any concrete actions the company would definitively take, or when such measures would be put into usage.[157][158]

    National Public Radio observed the changes being considered by Facebook to identify fraud constituted progress for the company into a new media entity.[159] On 19 November 2016, BuzzFeed advised Facebook users they could report posts from fraudulent sites.[160] Users could choose the report option: "I think it shouldn't be on Facebook", followed by: "It's a false news story."[160] In November 2016, Facebook began assessing use of warning labels on fake news.[161] The rollout was at first only available to a few users in a testing phase.[161] A sample warning read: "This website is not a reliable news source. Reason: Classification Pending".[161] TechCrunch analyzed the new feature during the testing phase and surmised it may have a tendency towards false positives.[161]

    Fake news proliferation on Facebook had a negative financial impact for the company. Brian Wieser of Pivotal Research predicted that revenues could decrease by two percentage points due to the concern over fake news and loss of advertising dollars.[162] Shortly after Mark Zuckerberg's second statement on fake news proliferation on his website, Facebook decided to engage in assisting the government of China with a version of its software in the country to allow increased censorship by the government.[163] Barron's contributor William Pesek was highly critical of this move, writing by porting its fake news conundrum to China, Facebook would become a tool in that country's president Xi Jinping's efforts to increase censorship.[163]

    Partnership with debunkers

    Society of Professional Journalists president Lynn Walsh said in November 2016 that the they would reach out to Facebook to assist weeding out fake news.[164] Walsh said Facebook should evolve and admit it functioned as a media company.[164] On 17 November 2016, the Poynter International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN)[g] published an open letter on the Poynter Institute website to Mark Zuckerberg, imploring him to utilize fact-checkers to identify fraud on Facebook.[167][168] Signatories to the 2016 letter to Zuckerberg featured a global representation of fact-checking groups, including: Africa Check, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact.com, and The Washington Post Fact Checker.[167][168] In his second post on the matter on 18 November 2016, Zuckerberg responded to the fraudulent news problem by suggesting usage of fact-checkers.[155][156] He specifically identified fact-checking website Snopes.com, and pointed out that Facebook monitors links to such debunkers in reply comments to determine which original posts were fraudulent.[155][156]

    On 15 December 2016, Facebook announced more specifics in its efforts to combat fake news and hoaxes on its site.[169][28][170] The company said it would form a partnership with fact-checking groups that had joined the Poynter International Fact-Checking Network fact-checkers' code of principles, to help debunk fraud on the site.[28][169] It was the first instance Facebook had ever given third-party entities highlighted featuring in its News Feed, a significant motivator of web traffic online.[28] The fact-checking organizations partnered with Facebook in order to confirm whether or not links posted from one individual to another on the site were factual or fraudulent.[28] Facebook did not finance the fact-checkers, and acknowledged they could see increased traffic to their sites from the partnership.[28]

    Fact-checking organizations that joined Facebook's initiative included: ABC News, The Washington Post, Snopes.com, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, and the Associated Press.[28] Fraudulent articles will receive a warning tag: "disputed by 3rd party fact-checkers."[169] The company planned to start with obvious cases of hoaxes shared specifically for fraudulent purposes to gain money for the purveyor of fake news.[28] Users may still share such tagged articles, and they will show up farther down in the news feed with an accompanying warning.[169] Facebook will employ staff researchers to determine whether website spoofing has occurred, for example "washingtonpost.co" instead of the real washingtonpost.com.[170] In a post on 15 December, Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged the changing nature of Facebook: "I think of Facebook as a technology company, but I recognize we have a greater responsibility than just building technology that information flows through. While we don't write the news stories you read and share, we also recognize we're more than just a distributor of news. We're a new kind of platform for public discourse -- and that means we have a new kind of responsibility to enable people to have the most meaningful conversations, and to build a space where people can be informed."[170]

    Proposed technology tools

    New York magazine contributor Brian Feldman responded to an article by media communications professor Melissa Zimdars, and used her list to create a Google Chrome extension that would warn users about fraudulent news sites.[171] He invited others to use his code and improve upon it.[171] Upworthy co-founder and The Filter Bubble author Eli Pariser launched an open-source model initiative on 17 November 2016 to address false news.[172][173] Pariser began a Google Document to collaborate with others online on how to lessen the phenomenon of fraudulent news.[172][173] Pariser called his initiative: "Design Solutions for Fake News".[172] Pariser's document included recommendations for a ratings organization analogous to the Better Business Bureau, and a database on media producers in a format like Wikipedia.[172][173] Writing for Fortune, Matthew Ingram agreed with the idea that Wikipedia could serve as a helpful model to improve Facebook's analysis of potentially fake news.[174] Ingram concluded Facebook could benefit from a social network form of fact-checking similar to Wikipedia's methods while incorporating debunking websites such as PolitiFact.com.[174]

    Others

    Pope Francis, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, spoke out against fake news in an interview with the Belgian Catholic weekly Tertio on 7 December 2016.[175] The Pope had prior experience being the subject of a fake news website fiction — during the 2016 U.S. election cycle, he was falsely said to support Donald Trump for president.[175][98][99] Pope Francis said the singular worst thing the news media could do was spreading disinformation and that amplifying fake news instead of educating society was a sin. He compared salacious reporting of scandals, whether true or not, to coprophilia and the consumption of it to coprophagy.[176][177][178][179] The Pope said that he did not intend to offend with his strong words, but emphasized that "a lot of damage can be done" when the truth is disregarded and slander is spread.[177][179]

    Academic analysis
    Jamie Condliffe wrote that banning ad revenue from fraudulent sites was not aggressive enough action by Facebook to deal with the problem, and did not prevent fake news from appearing in Facebook news feeds.[37] Dartmouth College political scientist Brendan Nyhan criticized Facebook for not doing more to combat fake news amplification.[180] Indiana University computer science professor Filippo Menczer commented on measures by Google and Facebook to deny fraudulent sites revenue, saying it was a good step to reduce motivation for fraudsters.[181] Menczer's research team engaged in developing an online tool titled: Hoaxy — to see the pervasiveness of unconfirmed assertions as well as related debunking on the Internet.[182]

    Zeynep Tufekci, a writer and academic

    Zeynep Tufekci has written that Facebook amplified fake news and echo chambers.
    Zeynep Tufekci wrote critically about Facebook's stance on fraudulent news sites, stating that fraudulent websites in Macedonia profited handsomely off false stories about the 2016 U.S. election.[183] Tufecki wrote that Facebook's algorithms, and structure exacerbated the impact of echo chambers and increased fake news blight.[183] Merrimack College assistant professor of media studies Melissa Zimdars wrote an article "False, Misleading, Clickbait-y and Satirical 'News' Sources" in which she advised how to determine if a fraudulent source was a fake news site.[184] Zimdars identified strange domain names, lack of attribution, poor layout, use of all caps, and URLs ending in "lo" or "com.co" as red flags.[184] Zimdars recommended checking the "About Us" page, and considering whether reputable news outlets have reported the same story.[184]

    Stanford University professors Sam Wineburg and Sarah McGrew authored a 2016 study analyzing students' ability to discern fraudulent news from factual.[185][186] The study took place over a year-long period of time, and involved a sample size of over 7,800 responses from university, secondary and middle school students in 12 states within the United States.[185][186] They were surprised at the consistency with which students thought fraudulent news reports were factual.[185][186] The study found 82% of students in middle school were unable to differentiate between an advertisement denoted as sponsored content from an actual news article.[187] The authors concluded the solution was to educate online media consumers to themselves behave like fact-checkers — and actively question the veracity of all sources.[185][186]

    Scientist Emily Willingham has proposed applying the scientific method to fake news analysis.[188] She had previously written on the topic of differentiating science from pseudoscience, and proposed applying that logic to fake news.[188] She calls the recommended steps Observe, Question, Hypothesize, Analyze data, Draw conclusion, and Act on results.[188] Willingham suggested a hypothesis of "This is real news", and then forming a strong set of questions to attempt to disprove the hypothesis.[188] These tests included: check the URL, date of the article, evaluate reader bias and writer bias, double-check the evidence, and verify the sources cited.[188] University of Connecticut philosophy professor Michael P. Lynch said that a troubling number of individuals make determinations relying upon the most recent piece of information they've consumed.[31] He said the greater issue however was that fake news could make people less likely to believe news that really is true.[31] Lynch summed up the thought process of such individuals, as "...ignore the facts because nobody knows what’s really true anyway.”[31]

    See also: Journalistic objectivity
    See also

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news_website
    Last edited by RealityCreation, 25th February 2017 at 23:36. Reason: Add link

  8. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to RealityCreation For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (26th February 2017), Amanda (6th March 2017), Dreamtimer (26th February 2017), Elen (26th February 2017), Fred Steeves (26th February 2017), Myst (26th February 2017)

  9. #5
    Senior Member Morocco modwiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    Nestled in Appalachia
    Posts
    6,720
    Thanks
    40,125
    Thanked 41,242 Times in 6,698 Posts
    Good thread.

    Isn't it Alex Jones?
    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -- Voltaire

    "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."-- Eleanor Roosevelt

    "Misery loves company. Wisdom has to look for it." -- Anonymous

  10. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to modwiz For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (26th February 2017), Amanda (6th March 2017), Dreamtimer (26th February 2017), Elen (26th February 2017), Myst (26th February 2017), RealityCreation (25th February 2017)

  11. #6
    Retired Member Australia
    Join Date
    12th April 2015
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    257
    Thanks
    2,992
    Thanked 1,605 Times in 252 Posts
    Good catch Modwiz! Sorry it was late my last night when I was trying to post this info...put it down to brain drain. Maybe one of the mods can correct the title for me if they see it.

  12. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to RealityCreation For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (26th February 2017), Amanda (6th March 2017), Aragorn (26th February 2017), Dreamtimer (26th February 2017), Elen (26th February 2017), modwiz (26th February 2017), Myst (26th February 2017)

  13. #7
    Retired Member Australia
    Join Date
    12th April 2015
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    257
    Thanks
    2,992
    Thanked 1,605 Times in 252 Posts

    David Seaman Being Censored?

    David Seaman's Youtube account of over 200 videos has now only 1 remaining. - https://www.youtube.com/user/davidseamanonline/videos

    Apparently his videos on vid me are also gone.

    So following on from my post #4 citing wikipedia references that I made earlier today re the criteria being used to determine fake news, (Note - I am aware that Wikileaks is also very controlled) I saw this in reference to David Seaman.


    Checking wikipedia re David Seaman - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...n_(journalist)

    I am posting the article in its entirety in case of deletion.

    .................................................. .................................................. ....................................

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Seaman (journalist)
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    < Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. The consensus among editors who made arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is that this article should be deleted. Users voting keep could not demonstrate adequate reliable sourcing for the article in order to show that the subject meets the general notability guideline and would therefore be notable. Sam Walton (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

    David Seaman (journalist)[edit]
    Not a vote If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
    However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

    Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}} or {{subst:canvassed|username}}


    David Seaman (journalist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
    (Find sources: "David Seaman (journalist)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
    A marginal American writer/blogger and YouTube personality. I do not think he has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The article subject has apparently has published a book (which describes him as "the founder of Shutterline Interactive, a vehicle for rapidly deploying publicity stunts") but he does not appear to have gained any more significant coverage as an business owner or author than he has as a commentator. There are mentions in him in unreliable sources (which I've taken out) but nothing very little (i.e., passing mentions) in reliable, independent publications. Neutralitytalk 23:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC) (updated 16:17, 11 December 2016)

    I've got no idea how to use Wikipedia from an editing perspective, nor do I care about learning as I have seen these sorts of things happen before, and it usually ends up with someone's Wikipedia knowledge being used to settle such debates and delete stuff, rather than an actual merit of the article in question. Just wanted to say this time I am watching with huge interest and would rather be anonymous and with proxy as I don't want to reveal my account name and donations history to Wikipeida (which is how I normally contribute). Of course now with David Seaman having 114,468 subscribers • 10,577,812 views when in October he had 6 million views mean it is very interesting how much more notable he is becoming and I am also interested how a user with the name "Neutrality" is anything but in the way he has reduced the info in the article in question. Now this comment isn't signed, it's probably going to get labelled with some acronym I don't care about, I just wanted my point made as a donator to Wikipedia who will not donate ever again just depending on what happens here. This comment is in the history here, and until history can be uninvented that's all I really care about. Thanks for reading. Will try and sign. 181.20.69.111 (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC) — 181.20.69.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    Keep - as I said above I only know how to donate to Wikipedia, but encoruage all to write "Keep" because they will use their knowledge of Wikipedia to say this page has 1 neutral and 1 Delete if you don't write Keep. At least I hope it is Keep I need to write. Not sure, as I said I only know how to donate. Perhaps user "Neutrality" if he really is as his name states, perhaps he/she can tell me how I am officially supposed to state that I do not want this article deleted? Thanks. 181.20.69.111 (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC) — 181.20.69.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    Note - Articles for Deletion Discussions are not a vote - it doesn't matter how many people say Keep or Delete - These discussions are about Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and the Guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons. Encouraging random, non-logged-in editors to say "Keep" just undermines whatever points you're trying to make. You'd be better off having just one person making a reasoned, balanced argument. Getting people to come here and blindly say "we should keep this article" will, eventually, not achieve anything. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

    Yet another journalist who by simply discussing factual information (Wikileaks) has been disproportionately slandered by the mainstream media in an attempt to cover up the truth. The jumbled up mess of a paragraph above shows just how the people of the world who bury their head in the sand will try to, with their idiocy, silence the voices of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.235.105 (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC) — 74.127.235.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    Political censorship77.40.137.107 (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC) — 77.40.137.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    The article should not be deleted or redacted. Its being called into question is untimely at best and suspicious at worst. His firing from Huffington Post is justification enough for the article's continued existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdrichtmyer (talk • contribs) 00:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC) — Pdrichtmyer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    I also donate regularly to Wikipedia and have been involved in projects with prolific Wikipedians. Anonymous here for obvious reasons. I think it is interesting that this journalist has become more notable recently, and is very well respected as someone who is bravely doing the job the rest of the media should be doing, and it's NOW there's a suggestion for deletion? That makes it appear that there is a concerted effort to reduce his visibility to silence his message, which makes it appear that there is a cover up occurring of the most horrific crimes. I don't think Wikipedia wants to be associated with that. I think this journalist needs to have a more substantial article, he has expertise on cryptocurrency also, and has been interviewed about that on the Bitcoin website. That article also states: "He has been a guest on CNN Headline News, FOX News, ABC News Digital, Coast to Coast, the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast, The Young Turks and elsewhere. His opinions and articles frequently appear in Business Insider and Huffington Post." That was in July 2016, and his following has almost doubled since then on YouTube, and he is one of the most prominent people on up and coming Twitter alternative 'Gab'. His article should be made more substantial, and certainly not deleted.82.221.102.36 (talk) — 82.221.102.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    Neutral won't weigh in on deletion but I don't like the edit warring that has been happening in the article, with Wikipedia's "protectors" taking out uncontroversial and verifiable info, such as that Seaman had a column at the Huffington Post, that ended after he wrote some (controversial) stuff about Hillary Clinton. Fwiw Seaman has a youtube video here where he complains about the article being up for deletion, threatens to sue Wikipedia for "lame character attacks" (1:58 in video), then rants about Pizzagate etc. Ok, I said "neutral" but I don't think we need this article. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

    I do not think Seaman's page should be edited to remove his credentials and/or deleted. My comment on Seaman's page being marked for deletion, and persecution of citizen journalists, is at the talk section for his entry at articles for deletion, Dec. 7 2016. Ladybird99 (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC) — Ladybird99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Delete - Not notable. I'm completely ignoring the apparently solicited people who have posted here - Wikipedia is not a Fan Site. The simple fact is that a collection of social media posts, blog entries and youtube videos does not make someone a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia entry and the "he was fired by Huffington Post" argument is just an attempt to Inherit Notability. No significant coverage is available in Reliable sources. Nothing in the article is independently verifiable which, as every experienced Wikipedia editor knows, means that a Biography of a Living Person should be deleted. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

    Keep - Seaman's notability is indisputable. His firing from Huffington Post was widely and internationally publicized and prior to that he was a very well-known reporter for both HuffPo and Business Insider, major publications. Seaman used his standing to garner an extremely large social media audience afterwards, which evidences his existing notability. The article as it stands now refers to Pizzagate as a conspiracy theory generally believed to be false. The standard of non-controversial biographical facts being placed alongside but separate from those on controversies, legal troubles, etc. meets that of other bio articles.199.122.112.244 (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC) — 199.122.112.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Keep The consensus and strength of argument appears to be heavily in favor of keeping the article. Seaman was a well-known writer for several news websites with large viewerships and he has an enormous social subscriber base on Twitter, YouTube, and other social media sites. Regardless of one's thoughts on the 'Pizzagate' scandal, Seaman's role in it has expanded his notability further, not reduced it. It's my position that article should be retained but his involvement with/reporting on the Pizzagate conspiracy theory should be acknowledged. 50.182.99.115 (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)— 50.182.99.115 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Note - There is definitely no consensus or strength of argument in favour of retaining this article. There has been very little reference made to the General Notability Guidelines and the Guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons - the issues that this Article for Deletion Discussion is actually discussing. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    It seems very odd that at the height of Seaman's growing notability/notoriety he is being nominated on the basis non-notability. Prior to being fired from Huffington Post for his articles on Hillary Clinton, Seaman was well-known journalist with a long list of major outlets, an appropriate person for a wiki article. When he was fired, he garnered more notability, and more still from his reporting on the Pizzagate story.50.182.99.115 (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)— 50.182.99.115 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    Yes, you've already said that, pretty much word for word Exemplo347 (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete. Sparingly brief one off mentions and no in-depth bio profiles from reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Keep Article has been edited post-AfD to replace non-reliable sources with reliable secondary sources. Michaelmalak (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    I currently see two that are just profiles, two that barely mention the subject of this article and one which appears to be just a rehash of a conspiracy theory. Which sources are you referring to? Exemplo347 (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    None of these are in-depth, significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The citations consist of: (1) a simple log of his blog posts at two sites (The Street, HuffPo); (2) a brief mention of his video in a low-quality news agreggator (Inquisitr); (3) a passing mention in an unsigned Huffington Post blog post from "Outspeak," an online-video network; (4) a passing mention of "someone who tweets under the name David Seaman" in a local TV article; and (5) a passing mention in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. None of these are in-depth. Neutralitytalk 04:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete Per user:Neutrality. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete Notability for people is determined by them having significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources, not by their social media following. The single result so far for the subject under "news" is from RT.com, a known propaganda outlet, and trivial coverage at that – not reliable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Comment Any in-depth coverage is related only to Seaman's involvement with Pizzagate (conspiracy theory).[1] Any reliable coverage of him should probably go in that article – see People notable for only one event. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC) (updated 16:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC) to strike reference to Inquisitr article – on closer reading it looks like ********.)
    Jump up ^ "Pizzagate: What Is Next? 'Daily Show' To Feature Panel On Satanic Pedophile Scandal". inquisitr.com. Retrieved 8 December 2016.
    Keep I just realised, deletion request appeared straight after David Seaman started his interest for Pizzagate scandal. In past all people, who supported investigations against Catholic priest sexual abuses, have been on similar way "attacked": ridiculed, called as "conspiracy the(rr)orists", slandered of lying. In such situation I think, a deleting of this artcile - exactly in this moment, as David Seaman shows his interest for paedophile scandals in Hillary Clinton milieu, it would be only proof, that Wikipedia is place for activities of people, who try to shutdown and silence whistleblowers, who make our society aware about NEXT politicians and VIPs involved in sex abuses against children. Ufortunately all, litteraly all whistleblowers, who informed about child sex abuses made by priests, politician, VIP-s in UK, whole Europe: Germany, Belgium, Poland, USA (Jeffrey Epstein - friend of Clinton's family!) - were alway right. Always. So, please, do not punish David Seaman with disappearing only because he became a next whistleblowers about child's traffickers and paedophile milieu of famous and powerful politician. Zboralski (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Wikipedia has standards for inclusion, including that material be verifiable and notable based on coverage in reliable, independent, published sources. It is not the place for advocating original theories or pet causes, no matter how strongly one may believe in them. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Comment: Notability criteria for journalists is practically impossible to reach if being covered on major media outlets is the only requirement. Journalists, even the most well-known and widely respected of them, speak through their work, and many of them don't work for mainstream media, their merit often being in bringing up subjects of interest that MSM may not cover. However, that is not the actual question here. Seaman appears to be an independent journalist who has been working for Business Insider and Huffington Post and now looking at the edit history of his Wiki article seems to be targeted for his involvement in the Pizzagate controversy. I would like to question the motive behind the Afd request, especially its timing now when it appears that in the very same day this Afd was filed, his YouTube channel has received a warning which considerably restricts his ability to post news reports on YouTube and further puts his channel in danger of being permanently banned, apparently if he continues reporting the controversy. I quickly googled and found Breitbart News reporting on his being fired from Huffington Post after an article about Hillary Clinton's health issues. He has also previously appeared on RT.com in different roles. I agree though that his work hasn't gained considerable attention until posting the article on Hillary's health and covering the Pizzagate/alleged child trafficking case. I haven't had time to dig any deeper on his previous work, but the article as it is now isn't very good really, apparently due to edit warring that was on right before this Afd was filed. All these things considered, I don't want to cast a vote as to me it appears that this discussion wasn't started about the merits of the article but raised because of the controversy. Sk4170 (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Notability criteria for journalists is practically impossible to reach if being covered on major media outlets is the only requirement. Journalists, even the most well-known and widely respected of them, speak through their work – the same is true of veterinarians, garbage-collectors, and lighthouse-keepers. It makes no difference – If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. As has already been noted here, notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources, not passing mentions. One doesn't have to just go by the sources that are cited in the article – the links at the top of this discussion section will show what sources have published about the subject. Reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy – neither Breitbart nor RT would seem to fit the bill here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, I understand your point in following the Wikipedia policies to a tee, but I think you missed my major point that followed. Looking at the article, it seems that it's turned into a battlefield of two camps motivated by Pizzagate. I'm concerned that this discussion is marred with the controversy and isn't as much about the said journo than it is about the scandal. Regarding the article, if it can't be rewritten to meet the general BLP criteria, then it should be deleted. Personally, I'm not into the strictest following of the BLP policy since as I stated earlier, as it is too restricting in some cases and I would like to see first if the article can be corrected and rewritten rather than deleted. I'd even see that if there is a consensus that this Pizzagate is the biggest claim to notability for Seaman, this article should be merged with Pizzagate - although it seems that the situation is not particularly settled there either. Sk4170 (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete Fails WP:GNG, not notable. Just a WP:FRINGE reporter. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Hold Trump supporters get problems at the moment. Things will get better in 6 months time. Clinton News Network, Clinton Broadcasting System, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times are not reliable. Fox News, Breitbart, Infowars are better. We will see the end of the Democratic Party. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Keep, if nothing else his very public firing from the Huffington Post at the height of the election warrants keeping this, but only as a stub if sources like ZeroHedge keep being cited. Reliable sources do exist, he has worked with networks that are not WP:FRINGE, don't be a reactionary and cite blogs that have "Tyler Durden" as their author. Even if you want to make a villain out of him for Pizzagate, people much less relevant to current events like David Icke have long, well-cited articles here. I am not saying that Seaman is the same as Icke, but this is relevant to current events. The article can and should be improved upon however. --Simtropolitan (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

    @Simtropolitan: If "reliable sources do exist" then please add them to the article. Improving an article during a delete discussion is encouraged. --Krelnik (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete Agree with Platypus, this fails general notability guidelines. --Krelnik (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

    Keep Notable journalist who has worked for, and been featured in and mentioned by, notable, mainstream sources. JakeHazelbaker (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    I have to note that this is not correct. First, he has not "worked for" notable mainstream sources; he was an apparently unpaid Huffington Post "contributor," which meant that he occasionally published blog posts on their site. See here: In 2011, there were "close to 15,000 people" who were HuffPo contributors. Being a HuffPo contributor, standing alone, is no different from being an independent blogger and does not confer notability. There is zero evidence that Seaman has been a staff writer nor a professional freelancer or any publication. And, even if he did work for some publication at some point, notability is not inherited from one's job. Second, his "mentions" in other sources consist passing references in less than a handful of op-eds/blog posts (including a student newspaper). This is not WP:INDEPTH significant coverage. Neutralitytalk 17:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

    Keep: I'm reminded of the American Association of University Professors's misgivings about the academic misconduct charges brought against Ward Churchill in the wake of the latter's 9/11 statements: "the Committee is troubled by the origins of, and skeptical concerning the motives for, the current investigation." On its face, this article doesn't strike me as any more or less notable than Paul Murphy, Elizabeth Jackson, Tony Jones, Nick Webb, Éric Messier, among many other "marginal" (non-celebrity) journalists. It's quite obvious that an increase in notoriety is what, ironically, has brought about the charge of "non-notability." Albrecht (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    If you think some of those figures are non-notable, then propose deletion or AfD them. (In fact, I've just proposed deletion of Éric Messier (journalist) because I can't find any in-depth, significant coverage for that. Until then, this is just a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Neutralitytalk 17:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Enough WP:OTHERSTUFF can be taken as prima facie evidence that WP:N is being improperly (and certainly selectively) applied. In any case, here are some WP:RSs you might have missed: The Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, El Horizonte, Slate, Valeurs Actuelles, Vanguardia, Terra Networks. Albrecht (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    At least one or two of these is not in fact a reliable source, and most are passing mentions:


    Wall Street Journal: passing mention (1 sentence) in op-ed (not news piece - not really reliable for factual assertions)
    Business Insider: self-published blog post by subject himself (WP:SELFPUB): comes with prominent disclaimer that says "David Seaman's views are his own, and Business Insider's publication of his work is not an endorsement."
    El Horizonte: Brief mention in local newspaper that merely quotes Seaman's accusations in video. No analysis or other information.

    "Slate.fr": Merely copies a single Tweet from Seaman. No analysis or other information.
    "Valeurs Actuelles": brief mention in conservative French newsmagazine that merely notes one of Seaman's YouTube videos.
    Vanguardia.com.mx: probably the most coverage, but discusses Seaman entirely in terms of Twitter policy. Unsigned article.
    Terra Networks: not reliable; appears to be platform for self-published blogs, similar to Wordpress. Attributed to "ALT1040."
    So this falls far, far short of in-depth, significant coverage. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

    Unfortunately, much of the above consists of extreme, casuistic hairsplitting: The Wall Street Journal is discarded for not being hard news — as if this matters for establishing WP:N. El Horizonte is, incredibly, dismissed as a "local newspaper" — serving a city of 4.5 million people. Valeurs Actuelles is described as "French" and "conservative," as if its nationality or political bent were relevant to the topic, and misleadingly characterized as "about a Youtube video" — in actual fact, the entire article is devoted to Seaman as un journaliste viré pour avoir évoqué la santé de Clinton. Vanguardia is, irrelevantly, described as "unsigned" (does that discredit The Economist as well?). Albrecht (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

    "Hard news" vs. editorial content does matter for establishing notability – notability, as mentioned above, requires reliable sourcing. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

    Until and unless the very existence of the subject of this AfD is called into question, the Wall Street Journal op-ed will be admissible as a WP:RS like any other: what's at stake here is not any specific factual statement found in the op-ed, but that the subject of this AfD was sufficiently notable to figure in editorial content relating to the Clinton health story. (In other words, the subject of this AfD's putative "firing" was considered newsworthy — regardless of the factual details. His claims being reported and/or discussed in the press was/is itself a socially significant fact). Albrecht (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

    In that case, the reliably-sourced information that emerges – at the most – is that James Taranto believes Seaman was fired for questioning Clinton's health. The piece requires payment to read, so I don't know more than that. But it does not constitute significant coverage. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

    This discussion doesn't concern an event's social significance, but whether the article meets the relevant criteria for deletion according to wikipedia's policies. Today's weather was also "discussed in the press", but not everything a newspaper prints is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Evidently the only mention of Seaman here was related to Seaman's claim of having been fired from Huffington Post – an opinion piece or op-ed isn't subject to the same editorial scrutiny as actual news, and so wouldn't be reliable for such statements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    If we were concerned with establishing or verifying the facts behind the Huffington Post firing, your concerns about the "reliability" of the op-ed would have merit. Since we are instead discussing the claim, which forms the basis of this AfD, that there is "nothing in reliable, independent publications" on the subject of this AfD, your concerns are misplaced. (Your invocation of WP:NOTNEWS, moreover, strikes me as equally misplaced, if not abusive: the alleged firing of a journalist reporting on a major candidate in the midst of a polarized electoral campaign is patently not the same as a weather report.) Albrecht (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    I was referring only to the WSJ editorial. Since it was used as evidence of notability, concerns about its reliability as a source are clearly warranted. If the WSJ truly considered the event to be "newsworthy", they would have reported it in the regular news pages, not merely given it a passing mention in the opinion section. I concur with the objections given above to the sources mentioned – a collection of passing references to a person or event don't confer notability. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    The Wall Street Journal is a WP:RS. The incident in question was given coverage in multiple international RSs, including regular news pages. You are entitled to your opinion about what constitutes WP:INDEPTH, but you should at least have the good faith to recognize that the initial premise of this AfD — that there is "nothing in reliable, independent publications" — is false. Albrecht (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

    Wikipedia does not have a strict definition of which publications are reliable and which are not. The reliability of a source depends on context. The guideline regarding editorial content that I quoted above is clear in stating that opinion pieces are not generally reliable for factual claims. I addressed the remark about this AfD's premise in a reply further down the page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

    As has been copiously (some might say tediously) explained above, the matter at hand — whether the subject of this AfD received coverage in a WSJ op-ed — is not a fact that can be doubted by invoking lower standards of accuracy in editorial pages — unless you believe these standards are so low that one can write "David Seaman" but mean "Darth Vader." Albrecht (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

    I do not agree that the matter at hand is whether David Seaman has "received coverage", full stop, in any given publication, nor did I ever question it. This AfD exists to discuss whether that coverage has been significant, reliably-sourced, and independent of the subject according to Wikipedia's policies. Anything else is a distraction. It should also be noted that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included – a more in-depth discussion such as this one might conclude otherwise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

    Your assertion — that coverage in its editorial pages disqualifies the WSJ as a verifiable source for establishing WP:N — was the distraction; I hope it has been put to rest. You have made your opinion on WP:GNG/WPEPTH clear many times before, so I'm not sure what purpose is served by restating it for the nth time. Albrecht (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

    Keep I don't read French and Spanish well, but enough to understand what the sources that Albrect mentions above are about. I can't see how in-depth and thorough the coverage has to be for the wiki-purists. There are tons of articles in Wikipedia with less merit. But someone has to rewrite the article, it's a mess after last couple of days' editing binge. Sk4170 (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Neutral leaning towards delete His Huff page claims a number of guest appearances which may go some way to establishing notability, if these appearances can be verified (after all his huff profile is his own work). The problem is apart from that there are three articles over 7 years, that does not seem very notable. As to his firing (again) this is his claim. I am not seeing much that is noteworthy, and much that is not noteworthy then any other no staff contributor to a website.Slatersteven (talk)
    Delete I'm not seeing enough real coverage not related to Pizzagate to warrant a separate article. Could maybe merge into Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) after being trimmed a bit. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Trimmed? There is nothing here anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Note -There's a huge, huge amount of waffle in this discussion that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the General Notability Guidelines and the Guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons. All the nonsense from not-logged-in editors at the beginning of the discussion and the subsequent discourse about political views and non-mainstream beliefs held by the subject of this article have added nothing at all to this AfD discussion. Can't people just focus on the actual issues? Exemplo347 (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete The one substantive source given about David Seaman rather than by David Seaman is from notorious click-bait site Inquisitr and even that is only to repeat David Seaman's claims about David Seaman being repressed. Other than that, his status as a TheStreet and HuffPo "contributor" is meaningless as their business model relies on unpaid submissions by non-journalists to survive and being listed as one doesn't proves anything one way or another. I note also that most of his HuffPo contributions have been removed. His status as a self-proclaimed citizen journalist out to expose a huge conspiracy doesn't except him from normal guidelines for inclusion. If he indeed blows Washington wide open and generates significant coverage, then, fine. As it is, that simply isn't there. The only other argument for his inclusion seems to be one of "..he has a lot of reads/page views/followers..." and all kinds of WP:GHITS and WP:UNRS and WP:TRIVCOV, ultimately to amounting little more than WP:ILIKEIT. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    While I don't disagree with your other remarks, your assessment of the subject's coverage by third-party sources is, stricto sensu, incorrect: the subject was covered in The Wall Street Journal, El Horizonte, Slate, Valeurs Actuelles, Vanguardia, among others previously mentioned by other editors. Seaman, deservedly or not, did receive real international coverage during the election cycle. Albrecht (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    People don't seem to understand what Significant Coverage means. It means a news article should be ABOUT that subject, not just mention it in passing. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    As observed by another user, some of the arguments in the "delete" camp are beginning to take on fundamentalist overtones. It's extremely rare for journalists to receive third-party coverage of themselves unless they are murdered or held hostage; the subject of this article has amassed more notability than 90% of journalist articles on Wikipedia (we literally have scores if not hundreds of articles whose only source is the contributor bio for the publication in which they write). Finally, the subject is absolutely central to most of the stories cited above, as any cursory examination will show. Albrecht (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Can I just point out that the subject of this AfD debate is absolutely NOT central to Slate - one of his tweets is mentioned in passing. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    That's fair — he's far more central in some of the other articles, though. Albrecht (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

    Although I might add that the Slate article is the only one in my list which concerns a phenomenon or controversy of which the subject of this AfD is already recognized (I think) as one of the central figures. Thus, it should be seen as reinforcing his tie to that particular controversy; the other articles are there to establish notability with respect to other events. Albrecht (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

    I appreciate those links but they are all of the sort: some people are tweeting/Youtubing/blogging crazy stuff about Hillary Clinton." In other words, they are about the conspiracy theories or Hillary or the craziness (or all three) but not about Seaman himself. I remain unpersuaded that there is, either strictly construed or not, significant coverage about Seaman justifying a page on him. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    With respect, I don't believe you've carefully examined the articles in question. One of the headlines is, verbatim, "A journalist fired for having invoked Clinton's health." Another (El Horizonte) is substantially about this same topic. Whether we believe that the events in question deserved coverage is immaterial to the purposes of this discussion. Albrecht (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    That headline itself is the kind of red flag mentioned at Wikipedia: Verifiability. For me it raises questions about the source's reliability. It's a serious allegation, so if it's true, why haven't more mainstream, English-language sources reported the same thing? Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    Regarding "English-language sources": WP:RSs can be in any language. Regarding "serious allegation": I'm not sure what you're referring to, but a journalist getting fired is the most ordinary thing in the world. Albrecht (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    If it's so ordinary, then 1) it's not the sort of noteworthy event that would appear in an encyclopedia, and 2) making a conspiracy out of it would seem to mark the magazine in question as a fringe source. Seaman's writing, YouTube videos, etc. are in English, so a lack of in-depth coverage in other English-language sources of Seaman or his supposed "firing" raises red flags. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

    For that matter, I don't see any mention at all of this person in major French dailies either: nothing from Libération[1] or Le Monde[2], nor even the right-wing-leaning Les Échos[3] or Le Figaro[4]. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you once again for bringing more information to the discussion. I'm beginning to have pangs of guilt about contributing to the overburden of text the closing admin will be faced with. Because, however, this deserves an honest response I will say this: I, personally, don't have a strong opinion about David Seaman's coverage is deserved. I have a mild opinion that his brand of self-defined journalism is not rooted in reality, but I don't think it is germane to the discussion. I have a fairly strong opinion that, as I said, his self-appointed claim of importance requires significant evidence. Take, for example, the El Horizonte piece: By the most generous reading I can see, three (out of nine) paragraphs are about Seaman. This is the pattern for most of the coverage available. The exception seems to be Valeurs Actuelles. This is a small-circulation right-wing-biased journal; the WP:RS status is very iffy. Even if we take this and the Inquisitr article mentioned above, that is still only two very dubious sources about Seaman. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    I agree about the reliability of the Valeurs Actuelles piece being iffy. I know almost no French, but going by a machine translation, nearly all of the piece is taken up by statements by David Seaman himself, which are simply repeated verbatim. There's no attempt to provide context or analysis, save the unsourced claim that "in a recent poll, half of Americans say they believe that Clinton lied about [her] health". Ideological and/or partisan bias aside, this is not In-depth coverage or even decent journalism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    Eggishorn: Thanks for your thoughtful reply. If I could summarize the course of this AfD, it would be to say this: I think I have shown, beyond reasonable argument, that the premise on which this AfD hinges — that there is "nothing [on the subject] in reliable, independent publications" — is false. We now have a number of editors who are determined not to accept this, and who have produced a whole laundry list of excuses why these aren't really reliable sources (just look at all the tortuous arguments deployed beneath my original contribution to this AfD. Or consider that now have an editor demanding an explanation as to why the sacking of an American journalist from an online publication wasn't covered throughout the entire French media landscape — is this a reasonable expectation to have, or a relevant topic for this AfD?)
    As for Valeurs Actuelles, while its politics aren't my cup of tea, I don't think we can reasonably question its status as a WP:RS (nor is the article what I would consider "quality journalism," but I'm not particularly interested in debating this either): its long publication history, editorial independence, and contributions from seasoned journalists all testify to this. Nor would I dismiss it as "small circulation"; the venerable New Statesman, to pick a British leftist weekly, only enjoys 1/3 of its circulation. But, again, there are only so many hours in a day, and I really doubt that such discussions are a productive use of anyone's time. Albrecht (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    Albrecht, I was tempted to just agree with your last sentence above and leave the matter there, but upon further review I feel one point needs to be made: I disagree very much with the above summarization of this AfD discussion. It is in fact very reasonable to discuss source reliability. Those are bread-and-butter concerns in AfD discussions. The basic issue has always been, and remains, satisfying all three prongs of the WP:GNG: significant coverage, reliable sources, independent sources. We need to test this article against those three prongs just like any other. Granting, for the sake of argument, that Valeurs Actuelles and Inquisitr are reliable and independent, even taken together they are still sort of de minimis (meaning here trivial, not passing a minimal standard) coverage. I appreciate that this could change and tomorrow there may be the significant and reliable independent coverage currently lacking. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    Eggishorn: That's a fair point; perhaps calling it "a summary of the AfD" was a little hasty and self-serving (in my defense, this has been a taxing effort) — a summary of my contribution to it would've been more reasonable. You're perfectly correct regarding the admissibility of scrutinizing sources (though would maintain that some editors have gone beyond reasonable scrutiny). What I found tough to swallow was the categorical and dismissive attitude with which certain editors rushed to dismiss my contribution out of hand, as if to simply reinforce prior convictions. Reasonable people can certainly disagree over whether WPEPTH has been achieved, but it's absolutely no longer correct to claim that there are zero WP:RSs, as it was at the beginning of this AfD. Albrecht (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    As was stated above, the basic issue is and has always been establishing notability per the General notability guideline (as well as WP:BIO), which doesn't require some coverage of a subject, but significant coverage – whether this was stated at the beginning or not. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    My acknowledgement, above, that "reasonable people can certainly disagree over whether WPEPTH has been achieved" would seem to make this a superfluous and badgering remark. Please refrain from replying to me unless you have something new and concrete to bring to the discussion. Albrecht (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    Comment - As I said, I'm open to new sources being found. With that in mind, there appears to be one new WP:RS since my original !vote: An opinion piece about "evil art" in a <5,000 circulation weekly that mentions Seaman in passing. Because that article, like some editors here, refers to him as a "journalist...formerly of the Huffington Post," I thought it might be useful to address that. Huffington Post lists Seaman as a hosted blogger. These bloggers are not HuffPo reporters or staff and they are neither hired nor fired. Actual HuffPo staff are explicitly identified as such. There is another category of HuffPo "featured contributors", but Seaman does not appear to ever having been one of them. The situation at TheStreet is similar, although they have since started to pay on a per-view basis such contributors after Seaman's articles. As I'm already more than deep enough into WP:BLUDGEON territory on this AfD as it is, I'll let the poor soul that has to close this determine whether the above information is significant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    Here's a link to information about the <5,000 circulation weekly mentioned above. In all fairness, I don't think the "evil art" piece does much to prove notability. Besides it being a trivial mention, opinion pieces are not generally reliable for factual claims – in this case, describing Seaman as a "journalist", "formerly of the Huffington Post", who is "investigating" rumors of a paedophile ring being run out of a D.C. pizzeria and involving Hillary Clinton's campaign manager that the NYT and WaPo debunked as fiction. The other information about Huffington Post bloggers vs. staff, etc. is interesting, but it would take a good deal of original research to make any of it relevant to a biography of Seaman since he isn't directly mentioned. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete. An Alex Jones wannabe with no real evidence of notability, and indeed no actual platform either. Guy (Help!) 01:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    Maybe you are right, but he has ten million views. And facts can be notable, journalists that tell notable facts are less notable. I think things will be different in December 2017 and he will be certainly notable by this time. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    What facts? There's nothing in his diatribes that comes close to an actual fact. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    For example: Trump, Pizzagate. Trump won the election because the main stream media (MSM) told that he will not win the election. Pizzagate will become a disaster because the main stream media tells that it is fake news. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    The media says Pizzagate is fake news because it is fake news. There is no evidence to support it, and it is not remotely plausible. Trump lost the popular vote and won the electiononly if the electoral college fails to do the one job for which it was designed: preventing popular but manifestly unfit candidates form being appointed. Regardless, the result had nothing to do with the mainstream media (and that word mainstream is important, it means, those which accept the most commonly accepted version of events rather than ideological bullshit). I am by now in serious doubt of your competence in this matter. Guy (Help!) 00:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    Comment One argument that keeps coming up here is that Wikipedia has other articles about people who don't meet the notability criteria, and nobody has proposed their deletion. That kind of argument is a red herring – specifically, an appeal to hypocrisy – that does not support the actual notability of the subject. As was said above, anyone is free to propose deletion for those articles or start a deletion discussion for them if they wish. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    Agreed - that type of comment adds nothing to the debate and seems to be something people are only saying because they have nothing of substance to add. This AfD debate is about Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and the Guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons and their application to this article, and only this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete Passing mentions and being fired from a job do not notability make. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete I do not enjoy deleting articles, but this reads more than a telegram than an article. A minor online journalist, who got his 10 seconds of fame by promoting conspiracy theories and getting fired. That is about it. He is not on the level of more notable conspiracy theorists, such as Henry Adams, who published such memorable phrases as "I detest [the Jews], and everything connected with them, and I live only and solely with the hope of seeing their demise, with all their accursed Judaism." Dimadick (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    Question Is the volume of incoming links from other Wikipedia articles ever a useful gauge of a subject's notability? I notice that the article David Seaman (journalist) currently has zero incoming links from other articles. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, definitely. However, this is a fairly new article and in the middle of quite chaotic controversy. The natural place to link here would be the Pizzagate controversy article. Sk4170 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    Reply In my experience, it is irrelevant. I have spent several years of Wikiediting trying to Wikify articles which mention the topics of other articles without providing links to them. Some editors do not even seem to search for related articles when writing their own. Many articles contain no links to other Wikipedia articles at all, several are uncategorized or miscategorized, and have not been tagged or improved by any WikiProject. Dimadick (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


    Note To everyone changing their comments afterwards - please keep your comments as they are (typos excluded), if possible, as it makes the discussion a little difficult to follow, and hard to react for those who perhaps wish to address particular comments in the discussion. Sk4170 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    Keep Stripping references and then bemoaning the lack of them is just silly. Passing judgment on the man, his assertions, or his references is equally silly. Let the article stand as originally written. Feel free to talk about it, do your own research as to his assertions/references and make your own conclusions. But please for the sake of not just this article but of the sake of Wikipedia in general STOP playing Gawd and let the article stand or fall on the merits of its content, not the tyranny of its censorship! LiberTarHeel (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    Note - You may wish to read WP:BLPREMOVE - the removal of poorly sourced statements is a fundamental part of editing Biographies of Living Persons. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    Note to closing admin - LiberTarHeel has less than 20 edits total and only four edits to the main namespace and makes no policy-based argument whatsoever. His/her comment should be discounted accordingly. Neutralitytalk 18:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    This may be too harsh. LiberTarHeel has been a registered editor since February, 2016, and has spend part of this time blocked due to an IP range block. I have had similar and recurring problems with IP range blocks in various Wiki sites. They can lock you out for quite some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimadick (talk • contribs) 10:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    Keep David Seaman is one of the only persons brave enough to even cover Pizzagate. Just like people covered up the abuse of Jimmy Saville for decades and just like the Franklin scandal was covered up it will take the msm decades to accept that there was validity to this. Even the speaker of the house Dennis Hastert was convicted for pedophilia. So I really don't see why people find it impossible to imagine that other politicians could be pedophiles too and involved in pedophile networks. I'm but this really enrages me. I was a victim of sexual child abuse as well. It took a full 13 years until I was an adult myself and able to fight for justice in court to have people acknowledge that this really happened. It took a god damn conviction. Why does this always have to be so hard with you folks? David Seaman is my official hero using his voice to fight for the rights of children, who can't defend themselves. And to your note I was a speaker at Wikimania. And I specifically talked about this issues in Wikipedia. It is really easy to manipulate it and it can in the end even be used to silence free speech and bury opinions and truth - I don't think that this is what it was intended for though. I really hope that this isn't what Wikipedia will become. Otherwise I'll loose tremendous faith and I'll question why I even put so much time in this project. I guess that you can still read articles on STEM subjects but everything involving politics will just devolve into propaganda. Sad. Wikipedia isn't trustworthy on those issues at all. I'll have to advice anyone to never use Wikipedia for those subjects. Not even to find secondary sources. Again: Sad.

    By the way David Seaman is also reporting on BItcoin and how it could be an alternative and save haven in cases of inflation. He covered the NSA activities before they became a scandal. This does in my opinion make him a journalist with a good feeling for what is relevant or will become relevant in these times.

    I do also want to ad that I'm not right wing at all. I've personally always been left wing and involved in diversity projects and environmentalism etc. Just to state that before someone will discredit me. As a German, whose country was affected by two dictatorships- a right wing dictatorship with the Nazi regime and a left wing dictatorship after the Russian occupation of east Germany I think that I can say that I'm really saddened by what is happening right now around the world. A dictatorship starts with the restriction of free speech. Hillary Clinton actually just said that she would like the government to be able to censor "fake news" and for the government to decide what that "fake news" actually is. It's beginning again. We're going into dictatorship territory. You'd think that people are smart enough to learn from history but apparently they aren't. It probably brave journalist like David Seaman that were smeared and silenced during the beginning of the two dictatorships in my country. What a brave thing of him to speak up even if it costs him his job and he's being attacked in this way. --EarlyspatzTalk 20:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

    Nothing that you have posted has any actual bearing on this discussion, which (again) is only about the General Notability Guidelines and the Guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons. How many times do I have to say it? All this extra waffle is flooding the conversation and it's pointless. It doesn't matter what people feel about the subject of this article or his previous work. I deliberately haven't stated my personal opinion because it has no bearing on this discussion. It's about the General Notability Guidelines and the Guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons, and their application to this article. Is that clear enough? I'm surprised that experienced editors keep falling down on this point when it should be obvious to them. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

    Comment You are confusing two unrelated topics. The notability and plausibility of Pizzagate, and the notability of Seaman himself. Is it plausible that politicians are pedophiles? Certainly. Do we have evidence for it? No. A witch-hunt targeting supposed pedophiles based on flimsy evidence, sounds like a textbook demonizing the enemy operation. And not every would-be witch-hunter is himself/herself notable. Dimadick (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    Comment Maybe it might help establish his "notability" if we have some biographical details to establish he his anything more then an invented internet persona, like DOB, place of education ect all? All he have is a (very brief) resume of his work.Slatersteven (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    I spent extensive amounts of time looking for those exact types of detail to help strengthen this article and I've found nothing verifiable from any remotely reliable source, hence my statement that the article should be deleted due to a lack of verifiable information about the subject. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    Been having a slight dig about myself, and have found nothing about him. He does not appear to have existed before
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-..._10836078.html
    Which seems to be his first article on Huffpost.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 20:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    Not that surprising. Remember his claim that he posts videos on YouTube? I searched for them, here. His first video was posted on January 18, 2016. No earlier indication of activities. Most of his videos since then have been attack pieces on Hillary Clinton and glorification pieces on Donald Trump. As for their objectivity, one of them is called "Ladies, Hillary Clinton is a demon", another is called "Hillary Clinton is CRIMINALLY UNFIT For Office". And my favorite title among them: "Hillary Clinton Will Destroy Us All & Has 'Elite Immunity' ". Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

    Which just reinforces the idea (as does the threat to sue Wikipedia if his page is taken down) that this is all part of a campaign to establish notability by just getting his name out there. People who do not need the publicity of a Wikipedia page do not make a noise about losing it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

    Delete fails GNG, just a non notable fringe pusher. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    [show]Personal attacks are disruptive to Wikipedia
    General Notability guidelines show that Seaman is a notable person because he has a well-known reputation as a journalist, as well as a large social media following. He is a well-known person who received widespread attention from the media, so he definitely qualifies as notable under the general notability guidelines. Ag97 (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, that's what you should have posted. The stuff about another editor just makes you look disingenuous Exemplo347 (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    Where is the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to demonstrate the subject's "well-known reputation as a journalist" and his "widespread attention from the media"? All I see is a collection of passing references to one of his YouTube videos, most from sources of questionable reliability. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    Comment, Ag97, could you clarify what you mean about no previous questions about his notability? The article is relatively new, created on 31 October, 2016. And most of the edits involve disputes over the use of unreliable sources. The editor who created the article, User:Pyzeseeds123 has been mostly inactive for months. Dimadick (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    [show]Personal attacks are disruptive to Wikipedia
    Comment: I'd also like to point out that the same editor who proposed deletion of this article also unsuccessfully attempted to get the Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) article deleted, despite that article being very noteworthy and covered by a wide range of reliable sources. See this edit [5] and discussion at [6] where the same editor repeatedly argued in favor of deleting the pizzagate article. It is clear that this editor is pushing a strong, personal Pizzagate censorship agenda on Wikipedia.Ag97 (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    All of which is irrelevant as the article must be judged on it's own merits. If material was removed reinstate it and lets see if this improves notability or not. If it was not nominated before for deletion then (as it stands) it should have been.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    Also not only was the page only 3 days old when it was nominated for deletion (neither odd nor unusual, a page has to be noticed to be nominated) but it did n fact mention Pizagate from the start. It is in fact red herring to try and claim the nomination followed the inclusion of Pizagate.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    This is yet another thinly veiled comment aimed at another editor - you still haven't said how the subject of this article meets the General Notability Guidelines, backing yourself up with Substantial, Reliable Sources. Every comment you add makes it look like you're solely interested in some imaginary feud with another editor and you're just using the premise of improvement of this article as a tired excuse. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    The fact that this editor has a history of attempting to censor mentions of pizzagate is significant and relevant. My argument is that deleting this article is an attempt at censorship, directly violating WP:NOTCENSOR.Ag97 (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    Only if we assume your assertions (and I have demonstrated they are not) are correct. The article was not nominated for deletion only after Pizzagate was mentioned. WP:NOTCENSOR does not rump all other rules (such as notability).Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    So provide Substantial, Reliable Sources for the article then it'll pass the AfD process and not be deleted. Problem solved. I'm guessing you won't though, so prove me wrong. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    Comment: It is true indeed that at the time the Afd tag was added to the the article, its content was stripped to two very short lines and one reference [7], by the same editor who is proposing deletion. There has been some progress after that but not much.[8]. This is a quite unusual situation, the edit history from the past couple of days is pretty wild, to say the least, so I don't dare to hope that there's someone brave enough to take the task of improving the article as far as it can be improved. After that it would be easier to see whether to keep it, or just add the relevant info to the Pizzagate controversy article. Sk4170 (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

    Please explain what is meant by "the edit history from the past couple of days is pretty wild", since I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. Based on the article's edit history, I see a number of bold additions and removals of content and references, all of which is a normal part of establishing consensus through editing – I certainly don't see anything that I would call Edit warring. Anyone who sees a way to improve the article as it exists now is free to do so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    I didn't use the words 'edit warring', is there a special reason for you to bring it up? I only stated that there is no proper effort to improve the article, other than a lot of minor edits and a lot of reverts. 64 revisions by 25 different users since the Afd tag, 29 revisions from 11 users after pp-protected tag. This is what I'm looking at. Usually, I think, there is a little more room given to efforts to improve the article during the Afd process. Most often, I believe that the Afds on borderline BLP articles don't even get this much attention. Sk4170 (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    As was said earlier, removing poorly-sourced, contentious material about living persons is a basic part of the policy on editing WP:BLPs. "Stripping" content is therefore not any kind of red flag in itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry, didn't see your second comment before posting mine above. I agree that it isn't a red flag in itself to remove poor content. The one thing that drew my attention was that the title is "David Seaman (Journalist)" and that word was deleted from the article itself. His journalist credentials have been discussed later, including his stint as staff writer at TheStreet.com, but for me that was the red flag for me to watch this Afd. Sk4170 (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    Here's a link to an older version of Seaman's TheStreet.com author page from archive.org (archivedate September 26, 2009), with the words "Main Street staff writer' under his name. Here's the current version of the page, available from TheStreet.com website. Sk4170 (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
    Here's a link to an archived version of the Huffington Post article that allegedly got him "fired". Confirms that he was just a blogger there. Sk4170 (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete fails WP:GNG. The day may come when he'll be notable as anything more than a fringe youtuber, but it is not this day. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete Non notable person. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    Keep - Notable person based on General Notability Guidelines and the policies regarding the Biographies of Living Persons. Also backed up by reliable, verifiable and valid references. Meishern (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    If you can back this up, I'd be interested to see this Significant Coverage in Reliable Sources - I assume you have this, because I have no idea why you'd say this otherwise. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    I would too, try as a might all I can find a a few references from the right wing blog sphere towards his "sacking" (something not confirmed or commented on by Huff post), and mostly anonymous so we do not know who wrote them. As well as some passing references towards him in articles about Pizzagate (for which we have an article, so no one is trying to remove all references to it). Merges this with the Pizzagate page, it is really all he is known for.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO Trugster | Talk | Contributions 15:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

    Delete This isn't a biography, it's a directory listing of someone of no demonstrated importance. --Calton | Talk 16:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete - He was only notable for being fired from Huffington Post and maybe spreading the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Unless he does more things, he is not notable. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    For to be fired from Huffington post. Even this is (largely) unverified, and based on his own version of what happened.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    To be pedantic: He was never hired by HuffPo so he wasn't actually fired, despite his claims. He was just a blogger that HuffPo has decided can no longer blog on their site.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    I think that is kind of my point, the only thing he seems to have gained any attention for is not even true. We also do not know he can no longer blog, only that he says he cannot.Slatersteven (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane talk 21:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete Non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete Non-notable; at best we have a WP:1E happening. --Jorm (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete or smerge to pizzagate (conspiracy theory). The subject is primarily notable for one thing, his role in the conspiracy theory pizzagate, so WP:BLP1E applies. We already have a main article for that conspiracy theory, without the need for this biographical stub of minor notability. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete or Merge to Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). Pizzagate is notable (among other things, as a violation of Exodus 20:16). This stub does nothing other than record that he has contributed to Pizzagate. He may have done other reporting that contributes to other conspiracy theories, or even other legitimate reporting, but, if so, someone can submit a new draft on this person via Articles for Creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
    Comment - I have confidence that the closer will take into account that some of the early !votes were cast by single-purpose accounts who may have been canvassed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete: I'd say 'Per DimaDick' , but, let's face it, not a single 'Keep' voter has managed to bring points with merit, for hecksakes we've had to Semi the AFD because of the 'keep' votes! Can we close this already and delete the article? Also, I'm calling it now. After this article gets cut, a month or two at most before we need to salt it. MM ('"HURRRR?) (Hmmmmm.) 00:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
    Don't worry, I'm not sure that an article that is meant to be a Biography of a Living person who is a "notable journalist" (but for whom nobody has been able to provide a source that proves that David Seaman is his actual name) will survive very long. The BLP policy requires a level of Significant, Reliable sources that just aren't forthcoming from anyone.Exemplo347 (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete - The sources that cover the subject are mostly poor sources, and one HuffPo article in which the subject quaintly writes about himself. None of the sources that I could find, or that are cited in the article, go into any real biographical detail about the subject. The subject fail WP:BASIC in that the coverage is mostly trivial and insignificant. The subject does not mean any of the three criteria of WP:ANYBIO nor any of the four, more specific, criteria of WP:JOURNALIST.- MrX 01:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete Not notable, fails WP:GNG. A few million Youtube views does not grant someone notability (views can be botted), and keeping non-notable people off articles is NOT in any way censorship. Gatemansgc (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete - None of the Keep !votes are convincing. Appears to be a blogger trying to make a name for himself by being controversial. As of this moment, not notable. Objective3000 (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete - I suppose an article on the Hillary's Health campaign issue might be written which passes notability muster, in which an account of the subject's firing by HuffPo might be accorded a paragraph or two, but that brouhaha is really all that I'm seeing in terms of coverage of the individual back of this biography. While journalist bios are known to be difficult to source out properly, I'm simply not seeing sufficient sources or sufficient career achievement at this point to meet the GNG threshold. Carrite (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

    That might be difficult, given the fact that he was only a Contributor for Huffington Post, not a reporter, and we only have his word that he's been stopped from posting his blogs on their site. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

    Are you saying that he's lying about having his account and publishing access revoked at Huffington Post, because HuffPo hasn't given a statement? He says on a YouTube video titled "Huffington Post TERMINATED Me For Questioning Hillary's Health" that Huffington Post didn't even notify him before termination and deleting two of his articles. It happened at a time when also other people lost their jobs, tv shows, after talking negatively about Hillary's health. Dr. Drew's case that preceded Seaman's dismissal with only a couple of days was quite public, but Drew Pinsky is a public figure and CNN had to say something about canceling his show. Most journos who lose their jobs/contracts but aren't big names don't get the same treatment. Sk4170 (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you for confirming what I said. There's only his word for his claims, and even if they are true - Wikipedia runs on Verifiable Sources Exemplo347 (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    And there is also the question of the newsworthiness of "Contributor fired from news agency for publishing unsubstantiated conspiracy theories". That doesn't seem to be an especially unusual or surprising result, and certainly shouldn't be enough to hang an encyclopedia article on. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    We are saying that his "sacking" not only does not establish notability (as we cannot proove any of his version, it is all his word alone) but he is so much a "public figure" that (unlike other cases of genuinely notable people being fired) his "employers" have not commented on it. Also the fact he says he was fired (for example) when he was not even employed by then tend to imply he is embellishing the truth somewhat (it makes his self published account unreliable at best).Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete as non-notable. It is interesting too that although there are mentions above that he had a role in Pizzagate, he is not even mentioned in our Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs) 18:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

    I dread to think how long the Pizzagate article would be if it listed everyone who has expressed an opinion online about it! Exemplo347 (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    You missed the point. On this page or talk page we see "prominence of David Seaman as a citizen journalist in the Pizzagate scandal", "Seaman's role in (Pizzagate) has expanded his notability further" and "not seeing enough real coverage not related to Pizzagate" etc. His claimed notability is involvement with Pizzagate, but he is not notable enough to get a mention in the Pizzagate article. If he was really notable he would be mentioned. He is non notable, which is why we are at AfD..Moriori (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
    My comment was actually in agreement with you. I need to work on my tone, obviously! Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
    Regarding the Pizzagate and possible merge, I think it is worth noting that of all pro/con Pizzagate clutter on YouTube, Seaman's videos seem to get a lot of views, 7 videos in Top20 of most viewed (search with 'Pizzagate'). So not a complete nobody blogger. He may not be the strongest candidate to have an article himself, but in the Pizzagate context his reporting could be worth a mention at Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). Sk4170 (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
    Can you cite a Wikipedia notability policy which says that YouTube views are an indicator or notability? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
    Given the fact that fake Youtube views can be bought, I really don't think that you should be considering "a lot of Youtube views" as a notability indicator! Do you have any Substantial, Reliable Sources that would make the subject of this article notable? It's a yes or no question, and if it's a yes can you please post the links? Exemplo347 (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
    Redirect to Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). SSTflyer 10:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

    Are you aware that Seaman isn't even mentioned in the Pizzagate article? Exemplo347 (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Navigation menu
    Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inProject pageTalkReadEditView historySearch

    Search Wikipedia
    Go
    Main page


    More on David Seaman - https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1675501

    David Seaman "finally lost it", according to 'a friend', who claims Seaman was poisoned and needs help (pizzagate)
    submitted 12 hours ago by 1ew
    Posted on Reddit 15 minutes ago:

    "David's a friend of mine. I posted this on Donald Trump's subreddit and it was deleted in under a minute. His Paypal has been frozen twice, his Patreon keeps getting messed with, bank cards frozen, police patrol cars regularly in front of his apartment to intimidate him. When I hang out with him, he keeps his cell phone in another room, says he can't stand the constant harassment emails and messages he receives every minute.
    His close friend Ashley and her roommate were stabbed to death under fishy circumstances as he was at the height of slinging mud at Molesta and Hitlery on Youtube. Police say it was a druggie random home invasion, but as you know, the Molestas have ways of getting weak people to do terrible things. While visiting friends in Maryland, he was poisoned and had serious cardiac problems for a day. He's gotten kind of publicly religious and strange since then because he said he saw the angelic lights when his heart stopped. "Alohim are real" he texted me. Since then, he vomits constantly and has panic attacks, I don't know what they poisoned him with but he seems different. Frail.
    Buzzfeed published a big nasty hit job on him last night and he finally lost it. All these Buzzfeed readers are contacting Youtube demanding his channel be removed because they read the article. He told me he deleted his Twitter because he can't take any more criticism or threats until his health recovers.

    Please pray for David. He's always been good to me and I hate to see them grinding him down into ashes while no one speaks up."
    Buzzfeed article: https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephberns...nJ#.ma888JPJX6

    http://archive.is/5O2pP

    https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/...st_ousted_for/

  14. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to RealityCreation For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (26th February 2017), Amanda (6th March 2017), Dreamtimer (26th February 2017), Elen (26th February 2017), Greenbarry (26th February 2017), modwiz (26th February 2017), Myst (26th February 2017)

  15. #8
    Retired Member Australia
    Join Date
    12th April 2015
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    257
    Thanks
    2,992
    Thanked 1,605 Times in 252 Posts
    David has an account on gab.ai -- It sounds like he has removed the videos himself.

    The latest from someone claiming to be a friend on Gab....
    This on David Seaman. He is ok. He text me a few minutes ago saying he had been advised to do it and will explain more in a weeks time

    http://drrichswier.com/2016/11/19/vi...er-censorship/

    VIDEOS: Social network Gab.ai launched to combat Facebook/Twitter censorship

    November 19, 2016/in Featured, Politics, Social Issues, Video /by Dr. Rich Swier
    Gab.ai is a social network that empowers anyone to create, consume, distribute and monetize their work under the auspices of free speech.

    Their Mission: To put people first and to foster discourse without hindrance and proscription, as is occurring throughout the online community.

    andrew-torba-gab-ceo
    Gab.ai CEO Andrew Torba
    The CEO of Gab.ai is Mr. Andrew Torba, who has fought long and hard for the cause of free speech. Mr. Torba explained his vision of a free society through technology, stating:

    If I had to pick a single event that pushed me over the edge to take action, I would have to say it was the suppression of conservative sources and stories by the incredibly biased Facebook Trending Topics team.

    At Gab we welcome anyone who wants to speak freely.

    One of our new users today is Kassy Dillon, a conservative influencer, who has experienced the censorship of Twitter directly. We are actively reaching out to influencers from all backgrounds who are searching for an alternative. We welcome everyone and want to encourage open, honest, and authentic discourse on the internet.

    Gab.ai’s co-founder, Ekrem Büyükkaya, is a Muslim Turkish Kurd with team members including people of Russian Jewish ancestry, East Asian-Americans and an Indo-Canadian of Hindu beliefs.

    Gab’s Chief Communications Officer Utsav Sanduja in an email notes,

    “Here on Gab, we believe in a pluralistic ethos of mutual respect and toleration of each other’s views. For us, the underlying philosophy of Gab can be summed up in John Milton’s Areopagitica: “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”

    At present the Gab.ai organization, which began on August 2016, has around 43,000 active users with 107,556 in wait list signups and 1.2 million gabs sent. The site is ranked 38,030 globally in regards to activity and has over 11,938,464 pageviews.

    CLICK HERE TO JOIN GAB.AI
    Here are introductory videos of what Gab is all about and how it works:

    New Free Speech Platform To Replace Twitter/FB Revealed


  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to RealityCreation For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (26th February 2017), Amanda (6th March 2017), Dreamtimer (26th February 2017), Elen (26th February 2017), modwiz (26th February 2017), Myst (26th February 2017)

  17. #9
    Retired Member Australia
    Join Date
    12th April 2015
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    257
    Thanks
    2,992
    Thanked 1,605 Times in 252 Posts
    Here is Alex Jones response to accusations against him & actions taken re his site.

    Published on Feb 25, 2017 57 mins



  18. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to RealityCreation For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (26th February 2017), Amanda (6th March 2017), Dreamtimer (26th February 2017), Elen (26th February 2017), modwiz (26th February 2017), Myst (26th February 2017), sandy (26th February 2017), The One (26th February 2017)

  19. #10
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,239
    Thanks
    88,435
    Thanked 80,967 Times in 20,254 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by modwiz View Post
    Good thread.

    Isn't it Alex Jones?
    Quote Originally posted by RealityCreation View Post
    Good catch Modwiz! Sorry it was late my last night when I was trying to post this info...put it down to brain drain. Maybe one of the mods can correct the title for me if they see it.
    Done.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  20. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (26th February 2017), Amanda (6th March 2017), Dreamtimer (26th February 2017), Elen (26th February 2017), modwiz (26th February 2017), Myst (26th February 2017), RealityCreation (26th February 2017)

  21. #11
    Retired Member Australia
    Join Date
    12th April 2015
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    257
    Thanks
    2,992
    Thanked 1,605 Times in 252 Posts
    Thank you Aragorn!

  22. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to RealityCreation For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (26th February 2017), Amanda (6th March 2017), Aragorn (26th February 2017), Dreamtimer (26th February 2017), Elen (26th February 2017), modwiz (26th February 2017)

  23. #12
    Senior Member Aianawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Posts
    12,485
    Thanks
    45,719
    Thanked 35,452 Times in 10,162 Posts
    We may be able to watch things play out, by seeing what msm is pushing atm, not seeing much atm though.

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Aianawa For This Useful Post:

    Amanda (6th March 2017), Dreamtimer (26th February 2017), Elen (27th February 2017), RealityCreation (26th February 2017)

  25. #13
    Senior Member Aianawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Posts
    12,485
    Thanks
    45,719
    Thanked 35,452 Times in 10,162 Posts
    Imo there is a wee lull a happening behind the scenes, repositioning.

  26. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Aianawa For This Useful Post:

    Amanda (6th March 2017), Dreamtimer (28th February 2017), Elen (28th February 2017), RealityCreation (28th February 2017)

  27. #14
    Retired Member Australia
    Join Date
    12th April 2015
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    257
    Thanks
    2,992
    Thanked 1,605 Times in 252 Posts

    Jake Morphonios Being Sued over Youtube Video

    $5,000,000 threat to sue and intimidation for another journalist - Jake Morphonios



  28. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to RealityCreation For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (5th March 2017), Amanda (6th March 2017), Dreamtimer (3rd March 2017), Elen (3rd March 2017)

  29. #15
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    23rd December 2013
    Posts
    938
    Thanks
    2,656
    Thanked 5,320 Times in 939 Posts
    Even though I have not read through this thread word for word - I have one sincere question: What exactly is fake news???

    It would appear to me that the term 'fake news' may just be the new term to replace 'conspiracy' and that is well known to be an alphabet agency creation - yes??

    I maintain my thinking along the lines of this: The worldwideweb may have been created to keep track of what people are writing about online but I fail to see how any such technology could be adequately policed. I think the cabal/illuminati/whatever are creating another level of chaos - due primarily to the fact that people are waking up. I know people who are rousing - they do not understand what is happening within our society but they have worked out that the beam ray technology news (via the television) is filled with anger and hate. People are tuning out purely because they know it is bad for them. The television news is making people feel sad - so they are quite simply switching off the television.

    Could that be the reason why there is a new level of chaos being created? Again - I have one sincere question: What exactly is fake news?

    I think it is up to the individual to decide - don't you? Telling people what is fake and what is not - akin to telling individuals what to think - yes?

    Much Respect & Much Peace - Amanda

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Amanda For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (5th March 2017), JRS (6th March 2017), RealityCreation (6th March 2017)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •