Reuters: New breed of video sites thrives on misinformation and hate

[Lord Sidious]

I'm not missing your point, Sidinugget. You're missing mine.

By pointing at those horses long beaten to death in this currently very polarized world, your couple of lines above are completely invalidating — with prejudice, literally — that whole article in the myopic eyes of the very one-track-minded who appeal unto the cited far-right video channels as their source of "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." They think in black & white, not in shades and colors.

So there it is guys; I've just posted a well-written investigative article that literally quotes people, but it's all bogus because Reuters has made some serious slip-ups in the past — most of which they rectified again, but that's beside the point, innit? So just continue watching your daily feed of neo-Nazi propaganda, vaccine myths, election fraud myths, anti-Covid-19 myths and Orange Jesus™ worship over at Rumble, Odysee, BitChute, and whatever else there is.

And while you're at it, don't forget to look at the headlines over at Project Avalon — the bastion of truth and freedom in these trying times. And 8chan 8kun, don't forget 8kun!

Nothing to see here.

I didn't at any stage say that I agree with those the sharmouta wrote about.
I find it amusing that liars talking about liars are suddenly believable.
Oh and they didn't ''slip up'' it was known that the info was bogus at the time.
If you don't want to invalidate yourself, quit the strawman claims.
Or I'll get Uncle Vlad to bomb ya.

[Aianawa]

Siddytough nuggets, let the man walk

[Lord Sidious]

Siddytough nuggets, let the man walk

He's his own man, he doesn't need me to allow anything

[Aianawa]

Empathy then ?.

Codding ya a wee bit Siddy, blessings from over the ditch.

PS calm nuggies

[Lord Sidious]

Empathy then ?.

Codding ya a wee bit Siddy, blessings from over the ditch.

PS calm nuggies

That's a deep ditch there nugg

[Aianawa]

While Anzac's a deep ditch is still good lol

[Aianawa]

In somewhat conclusion with thread this question stirs , diss or miss for hoaxy thread title etc now or it be okay by shire's sherriff's ?.

[Aragorn]

In somewhat conclusion with thread this question stirs , diss or miss for hoaxy thread title etc now or it be okay by shire's sherriff's ?.

The article stands and the information contained therein is correct, Vern.

[Fred Steeves]

The article stands and the information contained therein is correct, Vern.

There is however, a big difference between the accuracy of an article in and of itself, and other aspects of the same information covered that the content creators leave out of the equation. The lies of omission, no mainstream news source will ever investigate itself for its history of accuracy and bold, stand alone journalism.

The whole point of the piece came across very clear to me that the only problems of mis, and dis information, come from social media. And loud gaudy right wing social media at that. Run of the mill left wing social media is different in their approach, and tends to toe the line of conventional establishment thinking, so nothing to see there, they're okay.

Government propaganda ("Manufactured Consent" through the use of a compliant media), would be nothing but a conspiracy theory to the likes of Reuters and the gang, hell if it were true, they'd have warned us about it by now.

I'm gonna toss out for dissemination a quick example of what I'm pointing to. Below is a clip from the original article:

Some academics who have researched BitChute and Odysee say their relaxed content-moderation practices result in sites that are dominated by incendiary content that most online publishers routinely reject. Benjamin Horne, a social scientist at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and two colleagues reviewed more than 440,000 BitChute videos and found that 12% of channels received more than 85% of the engagement. “Almost all of those channels contain far-right conspiracies or extreme hate speech,” their report concluded.

Reuters searches of the sites show that their most popular videos are often full of abusive content and misinformation that grossly distort news events.

I took a sniff around Benjamin Horne's back yard here at the University of Tennessee, and quickly found something interesting. This is exactly what I meant by towing the line, it's classic working backwards from your conclusions that we also see so much of in social media of every stripe. It's a foregone conclusion that there is this ongoing interference from Russia, it's a given that it's a threat to our national sovereignty, so we take it from there without question.

(Obviously they don't mention Russia by name, but who else could this villain be?)

Using a mixed methods approach, we explore the main narrative themes conveyed by the public, via microblogging platform Twitter, in regard to foreign interferences in the U.S. presidential elections of 2016 and 2020. Our findings show that rather than expressing serious concerns about foreign threats to the United States’ democracy and its electoral process, the tweets reflected the political polarization that has come to characterize the American public. Rather than perceiving the interferences as a national security issue, the public appeared to selectively use the foreign threats to bolster their partisan positions.

https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.ph...cle/view/11682

[Aragorn]

The article stands and the information contained therein is correct, Vern.

There is however, a big difference between the accuracy of an article in and of itself, and other aspects of the same information covered that the content creators leave out of the equation. The lies of omission, no mainstream news source will ever investigate itself for its history of accuracy and bold, stand alone journalism.

The whole point of the piece came across very clear to me that the only problems of mis, and dis information, come from social media. And loud gaudy right wing social media at that. Run of the mill left wing social media is different in their approach, and tends to toe the line of conventional establishment thinking, so nothing to see there, they're okay.

Government propaganda ("Manufactured Consent" through the use of a compliant media), would be nothing but a conspiracy theory to the likes of Reuters and the gang, hell if it were true, they'd have warned us about it by now.

I'm gonna toss out for dissemination a quick example of what I'm pointing to. Below is a clip from the original article:

Some academics who have researched BitChute and Odysee say their relaxed content-moderation practices result in sites that are dominated by incendiary content that most online publishers routinely reject. Benjamin Horne, a social scientist at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and two colleagues reviewed more than 440,000 BitChute videos and found that 12% of channels received more than 85% of the engagement. “Almost all of those channels contain far-right conspiracies or extreme hate speech,” their report concluded.

Reuters searches of the sites show that their most popular videos are often full of abusive content and misinformation that grossly distort news events.

I took a sniff around Benjamin Horne's back yard here at the University of Tennessee, and quickly found something interesting. This is exactly what I meant by towing the line, it's classic working backwards from your conclusions that we also see so much of in social media of every stripe. It's a foregone conclusion that there is this ongoing interference from Russia, it's a given that it's a threat to our national sovereignty, so we take it from there without question.

(Obviously they don't mention Russia by name, but who else could this villain be?)

Using a mixed methods approach, we explore the main narrative themes conveyed by the public, via microblogging platform Twitter, in regard to foreign interferences in the U.S. presidential elections of 2016 and 2020. Our findings show that rather than expressing serious concerns about foreign threats to the United States’ democracy and its electoral process, the tweets reflected the political polarization that has come to characterize the American public. Rather than perceiving the interferences as a national security issue, the public appeared to selectively use the foreign threats to bolster their partisan positions.

https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.ph...cle/view/11682

But that is not the point of my reply to Vern, Fred, nor was it my point when I posted the article in the first place.

There is no room for any "Yabbut..." in my posting the Reuters article, nor in my last reply to Vern as you've quoted it in your post that I'm now replying to. Because then we're back to the both-siderism — i.e. "the article is not to be trusted because it comes from Reuters" — while we all know that the article speaks the truth, given that we've seen it happening right here at the forum, and at Project Avalon, and at other social media venues. I don't give a hoot about the left-wing or the mainstream media, because I know that they're also engaging in manipulation to further certain agendas. I know that, okay?

My point in posting the article in the first place — and I am actually shocked that this point was completely missed by just about everyone who replied on this thread, myself not included — was that this forum has for years already had to endure all kinds of far-right propaganda and mis- or disinformation, as we've all seen, and some of that was not just mis- and disinformation but actual, revolting hate speech. The refugees from Central and South America being referred to as "a caravan of pestilence" springs to mind — granted, it was in a quoted article from ZeroHedge, but the people who quoted the article obviously agreed with that vantage, or else they wouldn't have posted it (and others like it) here.

Therefore, in posting that article from Reuters, I was attempting to put the finger on the biggest sore — the plague that has been infesting this forum for years already now, and that has already all but consumed Project Avalon, its Fearless Leader™ included. It was not my intent to have this thread here distract from this biggest sore onto another sore. That other sore, real as it is, was not the issue here.

And then I am being told that I'm missing the point? Right...

Lastly, my reply to Vern as you quoted it pertains to the veracity of the article, not to what Reuters may be holding back on account of the sore that was never at the issue of my decision to post this thread.

And that, my friend, is what the interlocutors — and with certainty also most of the anonymous lurkers — on this thread did not (want to) understand, and why I thus took my leave from this thread earlier, just as I am going to do again right now, because I've said what needed to be said, and I think I've done a very good job at explaining where I come from in this matter. Whatever else gets discussed here — and you can all continue dissing on the political left and/or the mainstream media now; I really don't care — is off-topic and outside of the scope of why I posted the article in the first place.