Clicky

Close

Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Techie Admin Vanessa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,594
    Blog Entries
    23
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,105
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,135
    Thanked in
    569 Posts
    Videos
    8

    George Soros Is Funding Facebook's "Third-Party Fact Checking" Organization Targeting "Fake News"

    Dec 17, 2016 12:40 AM

    Behind almost every liberal crusade of the past several decades, from the blocking of voter ID laws to the Syrian refugee crisis, there has been one man quietly pulling the puppet strings from the background: George Soros. So imagine our complete shock when we discovered Soros to be the financing source behind Facebook's "third-party fact checking" organization retained to flag, and thus eliminate, "fake news."


    Just yesterday, Facebook posted the following press release to their website detailing their plans to use a "third-party fact checking organization," known as The Poynter Institute, to flag "fake news." The role of the "fact checkers" will be to review news stories and flag anything they deem to be "fake" so that it can be deprioritized on Facebook's news feed.



    Of course, that raises any number of questions including what will be deemed to be "fake news" (e.g. will dissenting opinions be deemed "fake") and who exactly gets to oversee such a powerful position that basically has been given carte blanche to censor media outlets of their choosing? Surely such an organization would have to be an extremely transparent, publicly funded, bi-partisan group, right?


    Well, not so much apparently. A quick review of Poynter's website reveals that the organization is funded by the who's who of leftist billionaires including George Soros' Open Society Foundations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, and Ebay founder Pierre Omidyar's Omidyar Network. Well that seem fairly bipartisan, right?



    -snip-

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-1...g-organization
    You can easily get agreement between a pig and a cow that wolves are bad, but they can easily fall into the trap where the pig says
    wolves should eat more beef, while the cow recommends a diet of pork.

  2. #2
    Donor
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    187
    Blog Entries
    8
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    72
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    146
    Thanked in
    88 Posts


    Thus adding yet another layer of fake news to the daily input.

  3. #3
    Donor Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    107
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    52
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    95
    Thanked in
    48 Posts


    Soros positions himself to make money in chaos, war, and the destablization of countries. He learned this during the Nazi occupation, and he has never changed. Of course this sick old fuck's money is behind this.
    “Finite players play to beat the people around them. Infinite players play to be better than themselves.” -- Simon Sinek

  4. #4
    Donor Sadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    1,352
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,466
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,531
    Thanked in
    749 Posts


    He has a hand in everything related to Globalism. Which begs the question? What happens if we never go to war with Russia? How will his goal ever come to fruition?

  5. #5
    Donor DookDook's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Some other place, the right place.
    Posts
    392
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    485
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    331
    Thanked in
    211 Posts
    Videos
    1


    Quote Originally Posted by Bear View Post
    Soros positions himself to make money in chaos, war, and the destablization of countries. He learned this during the Nazi occupation, and he has never changed. Of course this sick old fuck's money is behind this.
    Isn't that what Naomi Klein talked about with her book The Shock Doctrine? About how they create all this chaos and then just reap the profits from all that suffering? I've never read her book, I just know it from hearing about it.
    "Honest words leave the least room for misunderstanding."
    --Robin Hobb

  6. #6
    Donor DookDook's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Some other place, the right place.
    Posts
    392
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    485
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    331
    Thanked in
    211 Posts
    Videos
    1


    I think that if they can't get us into it with Russia over 'Russiagate' and making people believe that Russia 'hacked' our elections, they'll just destabilize some other country, like Qatar, and once the players are in place it will by like World War I all over again. Once one country commits, all it's allies have to start stepping up.

    Again, I've not read it yet, but supposedly Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August supposedly does a great job of explaining how WW I all started. The assassination of Ferdinand was only the final straw. Incidentally, the only reason he died was because of his vanity. He was sewn into his outfit because it made him look better so the buttons were there just for decoration and they couldn't get him out of his outfit fast enough to operate on him.
    "Honest words leave the least room for misunderstanding."
    --Robin Hobb

  7. #7
    Donor Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    107
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    52
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    95
    Thanked in
    48 Posts


    Quote Originally Posted by DookDook View Post
    Isn't that what Naomi Klein talked about with her book The Shock Doctrine? About how they create all this chaos and then just reap the profits from all that suffering? I've never read her book, I just know it from hearing about it.
    In some ways yes but Klein, as do others, make many mistakes in describing correctly what they mean and who is doing it. She starts out attacking Milton Friedman and neoliberalism. He first discussed the idea of a shock policy in economics. It was a theoretical answer to the question, how do you transform a communist state into a capitalist one. The idea is that you have a strict totalitarian regime with price controls on everything, no private property, no private enterprise, and you need to get to a democratic government with loser price controls, private property, and a free market for private enterprise. Jeffrey Sachs was the first to take that theory and make it an actual working public policy. It had mixed success throughout eastern Europe and South & Central America. Some places like Poland for example were a resounding success. Other places like Chile were arguably not. The reasons of course are pretty apparent in that Poland went from a totalitarian regime to a parliamentary democracy and the same time it transition economically to a capitalist economy. Chile, on the other hand, transitioned from a strict socialist regime to a dictatorship under Pinochet. Despite the economic shifts, it was still a totalitarian regime and the people suffered. But one could still argue that Chile has been better off once Pinochet was gone because of the economic shift from socialism to capitalism.

    But this type of neoliberalism on the right should more correctly be referred to as neo-classical liberalism. It is more closely aligned with classical liberalism with a few exceptions. Smith never focused on laissez-faire where as neo-classical liberals (henceforth libertarians) make that the central focus. Therefore they are more likely to want privatization but they still believe in some public works. They are definitely not neo-cons. Friedman is often portrayed as a boogey-man but was against the draft, against the Gulf and Iraq Wars, for LGBT civil rights, against extended copyrights, and a negative income tax rate that would actually pay those suffering from the worst poverty a basic income. It saw this as far superior to the welfare state set up by Democrats in the 1960's.

    There is another form of neoliberalism that is really what she should have been looking at. This form is true to its original early 20th century roots as a 'third way' combining socialism and capitalism. Of course, this is impossible as they are antithetical to each other. So the results is actually what we now see on the left with the New Democrats. it is 'socialism' (state capitalism and idpol) and 'capitalism' (which is actually corporatism). Both of these individually and combined lead to authoritarianism and a loss of individual and market freedoms. This is what Soros is. He learned from his Nazi mentor than when a functioning and free market capitalist society is plunged into chaos then wealth can be made by those fuckers at the very top who are above the chaos. NAFTA, the TPP, the Paris Accords, etc., these are all examples of neoliberal public and economic policies. Increase debt, destroy the middle class, and plunge the mass of the people into poverty. The wealthy then become a target for the elites who raise taxes and have the support of the poor to do so. That is why I maintain that the 99% includes the generally wealthy. The top 1% are beyond the country club rich, the wealthy CEO's, and the like. Of course, that money never actually goes to the poor. We get the ACA instead of a strong medicare for all system. We get welfare and food stamps instead of a negative income tax rate and a basic income. Welfare is control. Food stamps are a joke. The amount given never equals what is needed for an actual person to eat on for a whole month. The same with welfare. It is too little and always creates the catch 22 of having to stay where you are at without taking risks because you can't risk losing what meager amounts you are getting. The inner city wastelands of Chicago, Baltimore, and L.A. demonstrate this truth.

    Soros truly is a 1%'er. He is a vampire, and the world will be better off when he is dead. Though there will always be another blood sucker like him to take its place.
    “Finite players play to beat the people around them. Infinite players play to be better than themselves.” -- Simon Sinek

  8. #8
    Donor
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    25
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    66
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    21
    Thanked in
    12 Posts


    My personal practice is, before swallowing any purported news or info, to try to find:

    Who are the reporters, editors?
    Who's on the board?
    Who owns the organization, or who are its major funders?
    If it's funded by entities I don't recognize, who are their executives, board members, owners?

    This research has saved me from propagating fake news more than once. And I think the effort is worthwhile, because it's much easier to fight lies before they've travelled the world 3 times.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-04-2017, 07:55 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-02-2017, 05:48 PM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-19-2017, 06:37 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-15-2017, 06:18 PM
  5. Macron is going to rule France by decree- "Speeds up the debate"
    By Vanessa in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-14-2017, 01:00 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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