Rep. Marsha Blackburn Says Internet Service Providers Have 'An Obligation' To Censor 'Fake News'

from the that's-not-how-it-works dept

Fri, Dec 9th 2016 6:33am — Mike Masnick

Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn doesn't have a very good history demonstrating any knowledge of how the internet works. She's generally in favor of two very stupid policies related to the internet. First, getting rid of net neutrality. Second, forcing tech companies to censor the internet to stop "piracy." The fact that her rationales for these two things are completely in conflict with each other doesn't seem to enter her thought process. That is, she claims that there shouldn't be any net neutrality because it's important to keep the internet free from all regulations. Here's Blackburn explaining this point in a nice, quick and utterly idiotic whiteboard video:

If you can't see that, she starts out by talking up how wonderful the internet is just as it is today, and notes that it's necessary for creating jobs. Then she says this:

Some people fear that without government intervention, that entrepreneurs and innovators are going to hijack the internet that you enjoy. The World Wide Web! This hasn't happened. And there has never been a time when a consumer needed a federal bureaucrat to intervene.

Then she talks about passing her legislation to block the FCC "from ever regulating the internet" because "we want to keep it open free and prosperous."

Of course, she's quite willing to sing a different tune when it comes to her other pet projects. She was a major backer of SOPA, of course, which was a bill to regulate the internet and open it up to Chinese-style site-blocking. A few months ago, she also made the nutty claim that the script kiddie botnet hack that took down large parts of the internet would have been stopped if only SOPA had been passed which made no sense at all.

And she's back again now to deal with the highly exaggerated scourge of "fake news." Her solution? Have ISPs censor and delete "fake" news. Really:

If you can't see that, it's part of a clip of Blackburn on CNN talking about "fake news," where she says:

If anyone is putting fake news out there, the ISPs have the obligation to, in some way, get that off the web. And maybe it's time for these information systems to look to have some type of news editor doing some vetting on that. Whether it's the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians or whomever. You do not want that out there because it's... because it's fake news! It is not something that is going to be correct. It's going to end up being refuted. But it takes time, effort and energy to do that, and trying to sway or misinform is completely inappropriate, and in my opinion unethical.

So she isn't directly calling for legislation, but any time you have a sitting legislator (not to mention a Trump transition team member...) talking about how internet companies need to censor the internet to do away with "fake news" your ears should perk up. First off, note that she says that refuting fake stories takes "time, effort and energy" but doesn't note that finding "some type of news editor" who can review the news postings of billions of internet users is, um, physically impossible. Does she really not understand the scale of what she's talking about?

Second, I get the feeling that Marsha Blackburn's definiton of "fake news" differs from many other people's -- which is why we've noted that the whole "fake news freakout" is so misguided. The term can mean just about anything -- and all too frequently means "news I disagree with." I'm going to imagine that Rep. Blackburn doesn't much like this article for instance. Does she believe that her friends, the internet service providers, have "an obligation" to get this article "off the web"?

Because that's a pretty serious issue: you have a sitting legislator effectively calling for internet censorship based on a vague standard of news being "fake." Somewhat ironically, Blackburn has been one of the most vocal opponents of the bogeyman of the Fairness Doctrine -- which was an attempt to beat back biased news in the past by requiring "equal time" to opposing views. But Blackburn is constantly freaking out about a non-existent "fairness doctrine" for the internet that she insists was part of the FCC's net neutrality rules (it wasn't, and never was suggested). But her suggestion for having internet companies censor "fake news" seems even worse than a fairness doctrine. Rather than encouraging more speech, Blackburn is flat out supporting having internet companies censor content they deem to be "fake." That's bad.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: censorship, fake news, free speech, isps, marsha blackburn, responsibility

84 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

The First Word

“

Fake news is simply A/B-testing wrt MSM

So far, MSM is losing.

—Anonymous Coward

”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

HegemonicDistortion (profile), 9 Dec 2016 @ 6:20am

Careful what you wish for, Marsha

It is not something that is going to be correct. It's going to end up being refuted.

Hmm, just like practically everything Marsha Blackburn says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- x, 9 Dec 2016 @ 8:41am
  
  Re: Careful what you wish for, Marsha
  Techdirt has an obligation to censor this article as it is fake news...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 9:19am
    
    Re: Re: Careful what you wish for, Marsha
    Google has the obligation to ignore any laws made by Congress, as they are all fake.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 6:47am

Isn't fake news propaganda against the establishment, as opposed to the fake stories they push to advance their own agendas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 6:48am

Marsha's "brain" cannot move out of its own way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HegemonicDistortion (profile), 9 Dec 2016 @ 7:02am
  
  Re:
  As a Tennessean, we have so much to facepalm over when it comes to our elected officials, but Marsha is on a level of her own. Anyone capable of thinking beyond bumpersticker platitudes can run circles around her on the Sunday shows or in a debate, but her district is carved to give her a constituency of the willfully ignorant, so...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 7:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    You are kidding right? Marsha is no special snowflake of platitudes compared to several other elected officials.
    
    In fact Marsha is standard par for the course. She is of course "correct" that the internet should not be "regulated" but fails to understand that without government intervention of some kind that regulation still comes, just from the ISP's instead where the Regulations just mean... give us more money if you want to do that on the internet or give us even more money if you want to do THAT on the internet. No, it costs us nothing regardless of what you do, but you have to give us more to do it!
    
    And when you combine the fact that ISP are also content producers you get into anti-trust territory and then everyone just ignores it like it does not exist.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - HegemonicDistortion (profile), 10 Dec 2016 @ 9:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Don't think you're reading my comment right: Marsha is even more facepalmy than most of TN's elected officials (the federal ones anyway), and that she's a very superficial thinker, no deeper than platitudes, bumperstickers, and conservative bromides. Palin-league, in other words.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - afn29129 (profile), 9 Dec 2016 @ 8:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    Floridians have a goofball congresscritter to be ashamed of as well. Corrine Brown.
    
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgbBP9Em00A
    
    Damn glad she's not from my district.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 4:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why glad? If she were from your district you could vote against her, like I do against my resident shitstain Mitch Mcconnell. Since she isn't, you're stuck without a say.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 6:49am

Marsha Blackburn is just another idiot put in charge of things she does not understand nor is willing to learn about and seems reluctant to listen when other more knowledgeable people attempt to inform.

Now, where are my Big Ass Fries ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tom (profile), 9 Dec 2016 @ 6:51am

Fake news: ISP tacks on Broadcast Surcharge on top of normal cable rates that already include charges for local stations.

Real news: Cable companies rate increases less then average inflation rate.

Anyone see a problem with these examples?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon E. Mous (profile), 9 Dec 2016 @ 7:05am

Maybe Marsha and Clinton can go and visit China and see how they sensor what the Chinese Government use their Great Firewall to filter what it deems offensive, ooh and maybe they can pick up some tips on how they stifle free speech as well, and when Marsha and Hillary get back they can see if Obama can roll back some of those pesky right things in the Constitution.

If Marsha and Hillary are so concerned about fake news and all the other shit that goes on in the elections and so concerned about a fair race lets talk about the DNC sabotaging Bernie Sanders campaign and repeatedly lying about the fact when Sanders was complaining about just that, lets talk about all the dirt digging that both Trump and Clinton served up about one another.

Should we bring up all the misleading ads that played out not only in the POTUS race but in congressional and state seat riding's or what about all the supposed coalition groups that pop up every fucking election and are used as fronts to do the dirty work that the candidates don't want the blood on their hands from.

Honestly the hypocritical pandering about fake news isn't the only B.S. being touted here. Elections have always been a dirty cesspool to get into office and to stay there and nothing seems to be off limits when it comes to dirty tactics. Clinton and Trump had their dirty laundry aired as did others before them and other will well after them because it is win at all cost, and it has been that way for decades.

All the money that is raised to get someone into the running, all the money that is raised to support them in the race is way way more than the candidate will ever make in salary, so we all know that these candidates win or lose are going to owe people for supporting them, are going to owe companies for backing them.

The citizens are pawns in the election game candidates will wax on and on about how they want to make things better for the citizens and the government and to make the country better, but do they really? No, it's lip service to get in the door and then the citizens are long forgotten except the occasional pet pork barrel project to pacify the voters and make it look like their elected representative did something for their betterment, all while serving those that backed them and taking as much money as they can thru PAC's and any other way legally possible while bending over backwards to do their backers bidding at the expense of the taxpayer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- we, 12 Dec 2016 @ 5:57am
  
  Re:
  True. More people need to understand that truth, and be willing to give up the partisan pattycake game, and be willing to campaign for change.
  
  I believe it would be possible to create and maintain a campaign for change if people put policy ahead of identity politics. We just need to agree on what the change ought to be and how to campaign for it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 7:12am

Bon Appetit
"Some people fear that without government intervention, that entrepreneurs and innovators are going to hijack the internet that you enjoy. The World Wide Web! This hasn't happened. And there has never been a time when a consumer needed a federal bureaucrat to intervene."

She ate a healthy breakfast full of cognitive dissonance, and I abhor 'regulation'. I will be happy to see the FCC fall, but I still would like one of those "federal bureaucrats" to intervene and classify ISP's as Title II and outlaw all forms of network traffic manipulation and monitoring with only the exception of the most basic of QoS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 7:27am

All of this is exactly why normal people using the internet was a mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 7:30am

If she actually does get her wish, where will her constituents be able to get their news from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 2:06pm
  
  Re:
  Fox News Channel of course. The go-to source for all things truthful.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 7:36am

"If anyone is putting fake news out there, the ISPs have the obligation to, in some way, get that off the web."

Yay, no more Fox news, or MSNBC showing up on Facebook or Google+ !!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 7:39am
  
  Re:
  Or politicians like Marsha having a voice since they are only capable of spewing lies...
  
  If this passes hopefully the unintended side effect will be a much more peaceful news stream now that the politicians are gone!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 7:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    Tee shirt idea
    
    Front
    Q: How can you tell if a politician is lying
    A: Their mouth is moving
    
    Back
    Lying = Fake News
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2016 @ 8:23am
  
  Re:
  Or the Clinton News Network!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Frozen Njal (profile), 13 Dec 2016 @ 3:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    The one that hires Trump bootlickers (Corey) and boosters (Scarborough)?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 7:38am

What is the story?
All I can see is a placeholder for a story and a bunch of comments about "Fake news should be censored".

Oh, nvm, I guess that the new filter is already in place.

/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 9 Dec 2016 @ 7:52am

Every time I see the name Marsh Blackburn it's always bad news and I know she's doing something idiotic (and beneficial to her corporate donors).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wereisjessicahyde (profile), 9 Dec 2016 @ 7:53am

Well..
Well, the internet has given the US the "competitive edge"

As opposed to places like Pluto perhaps. Somebody needs to tell this lady that the internet in the US sucks. Its overpriced, monopolistic and just slow. It sucks so bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 9 Dec 2016 @ 7:56am

No need for quotes around fake, it has a plain english definition. Fake news is people who are faking news. When they are doing so for profit, it's intentional and it's fraud for ad money. It should be dealt with at the source like everything else not by trying to pretend it's facebook's fault or by pretending it doesn't exist or that an environment that allows making money through deceiving people is tolerable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 9 Dec 2016 @ 8:06am
  
  Re:
  I should say directly through deceiving people.. Since, you know.. Making money indirectly through deceiving people is otherwise known as capitalism. But direct money for deception is still fraud! :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Baron von Robber, 9 Dec 2016 @ 9:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    Aye, NPR found an owner of some fake news sites and interviewed him. Pretty interesting.
    http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of -a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs
    
    "Coler says his writers have tried to write fake news for liberals — but they just never take the bait."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 10:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ... Coler also says the reason liberals don't take the bait is because they are too busy smelling their farts
      
      Fake news appears to be a contrived talking point...
      
      In reality the whole system is fake... fake money, fake economy, fake political process & system, fake food, fake laws, fake authority and fake morals... the good thing is that in reality fake things come to an end... just as this fake system will, inevitably, like the fake systems before...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wendy Cockcroft, 12 Dec 2016 @ 6:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re: fake news
      Fake news for liberals? That's easy: ___________ says $stupid thing, advocates for $stupid policy. Wait...
      
      Okay, _________, a strong advocate of traditional moral values, caught up in $sex $scandal. Wait...
      
      Okay, try __________ introduces bill to make it compulsory to teach $religious $doctrinal $position in schools. Wait...
      
      Aw, forget it. :/
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Cressman, 9 Dec 2016 @ 8:10am

"Fake" News
The problem with all of this talk about "fake news" is that they don't mean FAKE, they mean news they don't agree with.

Does that means that the news on how a study "3 servings of milk a day" will help you lose weight, the study of course being sponsered by the national dairy association, is fake news?

What about a new study on anything? If it's not established scientific fact - again, depending on your definition on "established" - does that make it fake?

Or is it just political "fake" news? And who decides what is political, what's fake and what's news?

Who watches the watchmen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 9 Dec 2016 @ 8:43am
  
  Re: "Fake" News
  If you want to know the problem with fake news, talk to the people who make their money making up stuff that prey to people's vulnerabilities. The problem isn't just the usual problem of people being deceptive to sway opinion, it's that people can make money quickly and easily by writing actual fiction that they just come up with on the spot and passing it off as news. The message in fake news isn't a mistake or a lie, there is no message. The lie is that there is something worth anyone's time in the fake news articles. That's what gets them the ad. revenue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Thad, 9 Dec 2016 @ 9:02am
    
    Re: Re: "Fake" News
    Right, there are two separate problems here.
    
    There is *absolutely* propaganda and misinformation that gets spread through the mainstream media. Sometimes accidentally, sometimes deliberately and maliciously.
    
    But to my mind, when people talk about fake news sites, they're talking about sites created to look like trusted mainstream outlets and spreading stories that are entirely, 100% fictionalized.
    
    I would say this is distinct from a story at the New York Times or Fox News or even Infowars that is false and represents a specific political agenda -- because I think Alex Jones actually believes the crazy stuff he says.
    
    But that distinction is not, and cannot be, a legal one. Restricting political speech is an incredibly dangerous and wrongheaded thing.
    
    The solution to lies and propaganda is more speech, not less.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - crade (profile), 9 Dec 2016 @ 10:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "Fake" News
      In my mind the bar should be set high, but if you can prove intent it should be plain old fraud.
      Intentionally selling something by deceiving the buyer into thinking they are buying something else is already illegal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Thad, 9 Dec 2016 @ 11:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "Fake" News
        It would take a lot to convince me that this idea (1) is practical and (2) wouldn't be abused as a censorship tool. I think the risk for government sanction against misleading news sites is probably too high.
        
        Private action, on the other hand, should be aggressively pursued. Google and Facebook are both going to some efforts to prevent fictional stories from appearing alongside legitimate ones -- they've had limited success so far, and in practical terms I don't think this can be done by an algorithm; it's got to be a full-time job for actual human beings.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 10 Dec 2016 @ 8:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "Fake" News
        
        Intentionally selling something by deceiving the buyer into thinking they are buying something else is already illegal.
        
        That's not what this is. The only thing being sold is advertising, and that part probably isn't fraudulent. We'd have to see the actual contract but I doubt it says anything about the veracity of the content. The reader isn't buying anything, so there's no fraud there. Just lies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        crade (profile), 12 Dec 2016 @ 2:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Fake" News
        In mind my the distinction between selling something as a subscription and selling it by being ad. supported is not a valid distinction, but legally you may be correct. I wonder if this has been tested.. Does a service that is ad. supported need to adhere to the same standards that a service that is subscription supported does? I don't know.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 12 Dec 2016 @ 3:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Fake" News
        
        Does a service that is ad. supported need to adhere to the same standards that a service that is subscription supported does?
        
        I'm sure that it doesn't. I have never heard of the law recognizing attention as a form of exchange or consideration, and since that's all you're "paying" the content provider, and there is no contract, I don't see how a claim of fraud could possibly hold up. Add in the first amendment's protections of speech even if it isn't true, and successfully suing one of these fake news purveyors would be almost impossible*.
        
        with the possible exception of those buying the advertising space
        
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 8:55am
  
  Re: "Fake" News
  "If it's not established scientific fact "
  
  There are facts in science and there are theories. Much of what is touted today as fact is really just theory. The most fun is when a new theory is created to plug a hole in an old theory. So are theories "fake news"? Or are news articles touting theories as facts "fake news"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Thad, 9 Dec 2016 @ 9:12am
    
    Re: Re: "Fake" News
    
    There are facts in science and there are theories. Much of what is touted today as fact is really just theory.
    
    That's not really accurate.
    
    Science holds that nothing is ever 100% certain, and if empirical evidence contradicts existing knowledge, that knowledge must be revised.
    
    Your distinction between theories and facts is, essentially, artificial. If you hold that "fact" means "a thing that is 100% certain and can never be disproven", then there's no such thing as a scientific fact, but I think that's a bit of a misleading interpretation.
    
    If, on the other hand, you believe that a fact is something that is supported by empirical evidence and is held to be true with a high (but not 100%) degree of certainty, then a scientific theory is a fact.
    
    See gravity, evolution, general and special relativity, etc.
    
    The word "theory" has a specific meaning in science, and it's not the same meaning used in conversation. A scientific theory is not at all the same kind of theory that David Caruso means when he says he has a theory about who the killer is in this week's case; in science that kind of "theory" isn't called a theory, it's called a hypothesis. A scientific theory is a rigorously tested, predictive model.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 9:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "Fake" News
      Thank you!
      I was just about to comment, but you explained it perfectly.
      Something that is 99.99999% sure, is still a theory.
      Or said another way; even if we observe something to be true 100000 times in 100000 tests does not equal absolute fact, because 100001 might show other results.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 9 Dec 2016 @ 8:44pm
      
      Re: Science holds that nothing is ever 100% certain
      Are you 100% certain about that?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 9 Dec 2016 @ 10:03am
    
    Re: Re: "Fake" News
    Right but in that case the reporter is still reporting something. With fake news there is no fact nor any theory. If they were to make videos, they would need to hire actors to play the scientists and everyone else in the "story" because the "reporter" made the story up.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2016 @ 8:22am
    
    Re: Re: "Fake" News
    You're not a scientist are you?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 10 Dec 2016 @ 9:00am
    
    Re: Re: "Fake" News
    Do scientists even use the word "fact" as part of their work? I think "observation" or "measurement" is more like it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 9 Dec 2016 @ 8:14am

I'd say one has to wonder how such ignorant dumbass gets elected until you realize there are a whole lot of them out there. The problem is that once one gets elected it automatically thinks it's the holder of the truth and all knowledge. And 'gifts' us with bullshit like 'ISPs should delete fake news'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 8:33am

Fake news is simply A/B-testing wrt MSM
So far, MSM is losing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kallethen, 9 Dec 2016 @ 8:35am

What kills me is that politicians and pundits are acting like this "fake news" phenomenon is solely a problem of the Internet Age. I've seen stories and political cartoons basically blaming it all on the Internet and pointing at newspapers as the example of good news reporting.

As if newspapers DON'T do "fake news" as well?

Ugh. Yet again I feel I have to apologize to my son on behalf of the rest of us adults for the world we are going to leave to him...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 8:54am

I'm old enough to remember the WMD lies
"Whether it's the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians or whomever."

... or the US government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freakanatcha (profile), 9 Dec 2016 @ 9:00am

Fake News
Would love to see good ol' Marsh be given a quiz with 10 facts, five are objectively true; the rest objectively false. Let's see how many of the false ones she can pick out. I'm putting the over/under at 1.5.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MoreLazyLegislators, 9 Dec 2016 @ 9:05am

Replace censor with tag as fake
Censoring is not a good idea.

Labeling information, tagging it as verified showing links to sources and reference is fine.

This is a business opportunity for a clearing house or sorts, some group that has that UL label or IEEE certified but for news...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freakanatcha, 9 Dec 2016 @ 9:11am

Sure fire way to stop Marsha
Want to stop trying to censor "fake news"? Make the ISPs liable for any "fake news" they transmit. Comcast will scream so loud Marsha's hair will go back to its real color.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 10 Dec 2016 @ 10:20am
  
  Re: Sure fire way to stop Marsha
  
  Make the ISPs liable for any "fake news" they transmit.
  
  What do you mean "liable"? Lying isn't illegal, so there's no liability.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Berenerd (profile), 9 Dec 2016 @ 9:33am

I am trying to figure out what these ISPs they talk about are. Certainly not internet Service Providers as what I thought ISP stands for because according to the Legacy people they can do it all, stop Piracy, stop fake news, stop cyber bullies, stop online terrorists. I mean seriously, you would think they were selling snake oil back in the wild west.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Berenerd (profile), 9 Dec 2016 @ 9:34am

Maybe they should put a call into the Xfinity help desk, I am sure they will get right on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 9:53am

unconstitutional
1. freedom of speech
2. again, the govt going after infrastructure provider to punish content provider. ridiculous. and bs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
afn29129 (profile), 9 Dec 2016 @ 10:06am

Interesting if true.
Interesting if true. One MSM outlet was duped into parroting 'fake news'

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personaliti es-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs/

We can sure trust the MSM (Man-Stream-Media)to detect and protect us from fake news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 10:59am

The Onion
They have been writing satirical, "fake news", stories for almost 30 years. What's happening now is just the dumbing down of America. People just believe everything they see online without doing any fact checking. Sad times we live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 9 Dec 2016 @ 11:15am

How it begins
First they came for the fake news and I said nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 12:08pm

"Boob" Is Not Just a Sex Word
Marsha Blackburn is one of those go-to Congressional interviewees for the various 24-hour news channels. Scarier than the recognition of what a boob she reliably proves herself to be is the knowledge that there's a constituency that put her in office and news directors that solicit her ideas.

Every time I hear the shallowness of Marsha Blackburn's opinions I am reminded that, statistically speaking, half the people I encounter are of below average intelligence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
concerned citizen, 9 Dec 2016 @ 1:25pm

if they take away our fake news, what will we have left?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
REM(RND) (profile), 9 Dec 2016 @ 3:27pm

This just in: some people lie on the internet. In other news, water is wet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2016 @ 4:22pm

Who decides if a news article is fake? The government? Tech companies? The MAFIAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nyrgs (profile), 9 Dec 2016 @ 4:29pm

The Congress Woman is more in tune with the times than you think
I agree, she's badly confused about the Internet and net neutrality. But her logic is in total congruence with the plans and preferences of ISPs given the likelihood net neutrality rules will be rolled back by the FCC under the Trump Administration.

First, the big-market ISPs will expand the prioritization of their own content, which they're already doing, in effect, with zero rating, data caps and the edge providers they've been buying up.

Second, they'll establish fee schedules for edge providers to access their networks. ISPs will operate their networks like cable providers and if major edge providers fail to pay up, they'll be blocked until they do.

And to the point of the article, consumer and politicians can be expected to pressure ISPs to block objectionable and extreme content and they will respond to these pressures. Because these 'last mile' networks will be owned and operated without net neutrality's level-playing-field rules, ISPs will claim that their First Amendment rights allow them to make editorial decisions.

The 'Fake News' sites of the day will get axed. And plenty of small businesses, non profits and personal blogs will wither on the vine as they get shunted to the slow lanes and face new sets of access fees from multiple ISPs.

The open internet is about to close unless a lot of us do something about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 10 Dec 2016 @ 7:20am
  
  Re: The Congress Woman is more in tune with the times than you think
  I really wish I could wave that aside as tin-foil hat territory...
  
  I mean really, ISP's charging content providers in order to provide said content on the 'ISP's network', with the threat of negative consequences for not paying? That almost sounds like a 'Nice place you got there, be a shame if something happened to it' mob style threat, the idea that it would not only get a pass but encouraged is absurd...
  
  ... is what I might have said before those same ISP's did exactly that with the 'zero-rating' game, and politicians started calling for censoring 'fake' news and 'terrorist' content. As it stands however I can see your prediction coming true all too easily, which is worrisome to say the least.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nyrgs (profile), 10 Dec 2016 @ 9:42am

I’m perhaps overstating the alarm over the loss of net neutrality by maybe giving the impression this will happen overnight. It likely won’t.

But consider Jeffrey Eisenach’s September 17, 2014 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he lays out a very strong free-market argument against net neutrality. Specifically, he argues that in preventing paid agreements between ISPs and edge providers, edge providers are benefiting unfairly. This is “best understood,” he explained, “as an effort by one set of private interests to enrich itself by using the power of the state to obtain free services from another – a classic example of what economists term “rent seeking.” Need I add that Mr. Eisenach is one of president-elect Donald Trump's tech advisors?

And in the oral arguments of Verison v FCC you’ll find another strongly presented argument that in banning paid prioritization, the FCC is forcing a price of $0 on ISPs for the network access they provide edge providers. In response to a question by the court about what would happen if an edge provider refused to pay, the Verizon’s attorney said Verizon would want to reserve the right to refuse the edge provider access.

And in his dissent and objections to the current net neutrality rules, Commissioner Ajit Pai’s wrote (on page 2) that “For the first time, the FCC will regulate the rates that Internet service providers may charge and will set a price of zero for certain commercial agreements.” This is footnoted with the following:

“The Order bans paid prioritization, and as the Verizon court put it: “In requiring that all edge providers receive this minimum level of access for free, these rules would appear on their face to impose per se common carrier obligations with respect to that minimum level of service.” Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623, 658 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Setting a prospective rate of zero for a service is the very definition of ex ante rate regulation.”

Commissioner Ajit Pai will likely continue to serve on the FCC in 2017 and has been mentioned as its new chair.

Without the ban on throttling, blocking and paid prioritization, I believe the risk to the open Internet is real and not tin-foil folly; and that over time it can become something more akin to the original AOL, or an online, albeit commercial, library where selection, not censorship, shapes what’s available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2016 @ 10:57am

"Fake news" equals to censorship of news the establishment doesn't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DNY (profile), 10 Dec 2016 @ 8:24pm

Now which fake news would that be?
Pieces by Jayson Blair in the New York Times?

That big expose about a gang rape by a fraternity at U.Va.?

The anachronistic Microsoft Word documents Dan Rather tried to pass off as early '70's National Guard documents about George W. Bush?

Or just nitwits passing off pieces from The Onion or Onion-wannabes as actual news because they don't know better?

As the old tabloid motto said "inquiring minds want to know."

Somehow, I suspect it's only the last one. Maybe an education system that actually educates people with a view to the fact they might actually have to make policy decisions, at least in the voting booth, if not in elective office, rather than just "to get a good job" is the answer, rather than an attack on the First Amendment. As Will Rogers used to say, "In American, anyone can grow up to be President. . . it's a risk we all take." (The same goes for Senator and Congressman.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

JOHN MAYOR, 11 Dec 2016 @ 5:24am

FAKE VS REAL NEWS
B-U-L-L-S-E-Y-E, Mike!... and!... not only do we need NET NEUTRALITY, we need SEARCH NEUTRALITY!... which is something-- I'm guessing!-- Marsha Blackburn is ALSO oblivious of! And as for the institution of some new "Editorial Mechanism" to counter "FAKE NEWS", what "self-syled Gatekeeper" would put this into play? And!... ISP's-- in my view!-- SOULD BE R-E-M-O-V-E-D A-L-T-O-G-E-T-H-E-R, as the means we use to connect to the Net!
.
It is the role of the FBI... through our Constitutional Case Laws, and Tort Case Laws, to examine, and delimit, "FAKE NEWS"!... i.e., within the framework hereinafter outlined! And given the current preoccupation the FBI has with "FAKE NEWS", the FBI, will-- over time!-- bump into the "limits" of a "FREE PRESS"! And until that happens, we are left with individuals and advocacies to challenge the less than state-of-the-art in News gathering, and News dissemination!!
.
What most Americans are unaware of, is that ALL AMERICANS have as much of a Right to gather and disseminate information, as any member of what might be described, as, the "Corporate Media"!... and, something, the Corporate Media don't want the rest of America, to know about! These would want you to believe that a "FREE PRESS", pertains to THEM, and to THEM alone!... although, every case law that/ which has argued about the scope of this Freedom, contends otherwise! Nevertheless!... THESE, are "hold up" at the White House, state legislatures, and municipal and regional assemblies, to PROCLAIM "PRESS EXCLUSIVITY", and to dictate who will be "allowed in" to do, what these have been COLLUSIVELY GRANTED to do, by countless Human Rights violating political and bureaucratic PSEUDODEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCES!
.
In other words, Americans have... directly and/ or indirectly evidenced, and by commission and/ or omission!... given the Corporate Media a nigh EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to gather and disseminate information WITHIN AMERICANS' VERY OWN PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS!... and thereby, allowing the Corporate Media to dictate what we see, and hear, through a "less than FREE" "Corporate Press"! This has meant, for example, the issuance of "CORPORATE MEDIA Press Passes" to whomever the CORPORATE MEDIA decides will be "eligible", to communicate with citizens' own political, and bureaucratic EMPLOYEES! And so... if there be a question, or two, or three that citizens may have about the sundry injustices we confront on a daily basis, we are left-- in many instances!-- with the "pat answers" being S-P-U-N by "Elite Interests", who have already "rigged the public interest game", by "social default"!... i.e., by "complacent social inattentiveness" to the Rights bestowed on citizens through their Constitution, and by way of numerous Constitutional and Tort Case Laws (and, that/ which, have decided in their favor!)! This "Corporate Media arrangement" has, also, led to a "one-sided" dispensation of Corporate Media "truths" through CORPORATE BLOGS!... to which-- and in most instances!-- citizens have NO RIGHT TO COMMENT UPON!... and, inasmuch, as most Corporate Media websites either have no Comment Log/ Clog window for commentary, or, are confronted with obligatory passwords! And passwords, which not only violate one's Right to Free Speech and Free Association, such have been REPEATEDLY BREACHED through countless ICT attacks (e.g., by hacking!)!
.
Simply put!... above and beyond the arbitrary removal of Comment Logs/ Clogs from websites as SPAM, Spam, spam, is the INSIDIOUS denial of Clogs, A-L-T-O-G-E-T-H-E-R! And my recent "CYBEREPHIPHANY", and "CYBEREURIKA MOMENT" concerning COMPLETE CLOG DENIAL, has been to suggest a wholly new method for RESPONSIBLY RANKING Search Engine search results (and thereby, Corporate Media results listings!... and regardless of the Search Engine!)! And my method, is as follows...
.
IT IS MY POSITION, THAT ALL SEARCH RESULTS (REGARDLESS OF THE SEARCH ENGINE BEING USED!) SHOULD BE "M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D" TO BE W-E-I-G-H-T-E-D I-N F-A-V-O-U-R OF RESULTS THAT ALLOW FOR F-R-E-E (BOTH UNINTERMELLED, AND COST-FREE!) P-U-B-L-I-C C-O-M-M-E-N-T-A-R-Y (AND THUS, REQUIRING A COMMENT LOG/ CLOG SECTION TO BE PRESENT WITHIN SITES, IN ORDER FOR A WEBSITE TO BE GRANTED "PREFERENTIAL RANKING" BY, AND WITHIN, A-N-Y SEARCH ENGINE!)! AND THUSLY!... ELIMINATING THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF SEARCH ENGINES... AND/ OR "CERTAIN" THIRD-PARTY "ELITE INTERESTS"!... FROM INDIVIDUALLY, OR JOINTLY "M-A-N-I-P-U-L-A-T-I-N-G" "POLITICALLY CHARGED", OR "LEANING" COMMENTARY AWAY FROM "TOP BILLING (THROUGH PERVERSE 'SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION'/ SEO ALGORITHMS!... AND/ OR, OTHER 'A-N-T-I SEARCH NEUTRALITY' AND 'A-N-T-I NET NEUTRALITY' ALGORITHMS!)"! AND, SIMPLY BECAUSE, SEARCH ENGINES!... AND/ OR "CERTAIN" THIRD-PARTY "ELITE INTERESTS"!... FEEL THAT T-H-E-S-E ARE DIRECTLY, AND/ OR INDIRECTLY, ADVERSELY "POLITICALLY/ SOCIALLY IMPACTED (BY COMMISSION AND/ OR OMISSION!... DIRECTLY AND/ OR INDIRECTLY EVIDENCED!)" BY THE OTHERWISE "SEARCH ENGINE ALLOWED" "RESULT RANKING" OF SUCH "POLITICALLY CHARGED", OR "LEANING" COMMENTARY (E.G., THE MESSAGE YOU ARE NOW READING!)! AND THUSLY!... NO "NEUTRAL WEBSITE (I.E., ONE HAVING N-O CLOG!)" WOULD BE ALLOWED AT THE TOP OF SEARCH RESULTS RANKINGS!... P-E-R-I-O-D!! UNLESS!... AND OF COURSE!... N-O C-O-M-M-E-N-T-S HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED WITHIN THE SUM NUMBER OF THE T-H-E-N "COMMENTS FACILITATING SITES" LISTED WITHIN A SEARCH ENGINE'S SEARCH RESULTS (RESPECTIVE OF A GIVEN SEARCH EXPRESSION USED!)!... OR!... THE SITE DOESN'T LEND ITSELF TO "PUBLIC COMMENTARY (I.E., THE NATURE OF THE WEBSITE, 'LOGICALLY PRECLUDES' FACILITATING PUBLIC DISCUSSION!)"! AND THIS WILL THEN MEAN, THAT, F-R-E-E D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-U-B-L-I-C E-X-P-R-E-S-S-I-O-N WILL "HOLD SWAY" OVER A-N-Y A-N-D A-L-L O-T-H-E-R "RANKING CONSIDERATIONS", RE THE RANKING OF SEARCH ENGINE SEARCH RESULTS!
.
THE NEXT STEP, WOULD BE TO ADDRESS THE DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS INHERE WITHIN THE VERY DESIGN OF CLOG WINDOWS WITHIN RESPECTIVE WEBSITES, THAT DISALLOW LINKING, AND "CRITICAL COMMENTARY (BUT, ETC.!)"!... AND, IN ADDITION, TO PUTTING A STOP TO IP ADDRESS THEFT, AND MANIPULATION!
.
It's time for Americans to take back their Free Press Right, and to begin to "tell the tale", as T-H-E-S-E see fit!
.
But!... and to continue with the "tactical" and "strategic" "MODUS OPERANDI" of the Republican ranks to address "FAKE NEWS", it's important to address some of the "FAKE NEWS" that/ which has resulted in the FBI's newly found interest!... and, the which, has also already led to "incidents" of overt attacks against "Newsworthy" and "Target-worthy" victims, by way of gullible "News consumers (and e.g., the 'Pizzagate' incident!)"!...
.
TRUMPIAN PEDOPHILIA: OR HIDDEN PAEDO_(EROTOPHONOPHILIA) APOCALPSE
.
Given James Comey's declaration that there was/ is nothing further to be pursued re Hillary Clinton's emails-- and, most notably, involving charges!-- the offerings at URL, http://yournewswire.com/nypd-hillary-clinton-child-sex-scandal/, would NOT ONLY appear to be "FAKE NEWS", BUT-- ALSO!-- the ravings of a S-O-C-I-O-P-S-Y-C-H-O-P-A-T-H, and deserving of IMMEDIATE REDRESS by the FBI!... and!... as such is in clear violation of the following...
.
FEDERAL STALKING STATUTE (18 U.S.C. §2261A)
.
The abovenoted statute makes it a F-E-L-O-N-Y for someone to use any interactive computer service, or electronic communication service or system (by the FBI, CIA, NSA, or otherwise!... and e.g., http://yournewswire.com/nypd-hillary-clinton-child-sex-scandal/ ) with the intent to kill, injure, HARASS, INTIMIDATE, or place under surveillance (through an official and/ or an unofficial proxy!) with the intent to kill, injure, HARASS, OR INTIMIDATE another person, and engage in a course of conduct that places a person in reasonable fear of death, or serious bodily injury, OR CAUSES, ATTEMPTS TO CAUSE, OR WOULD REASONABLY BE EXPRECTED TO CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (NOT TO MENTION, A COMPROMISE OF AN ELECTION PROCESS!)!
.
(PLEASE NOTE: IN ANY FAILURE OF THE FBI TO HOLD THE AFORENOTED URL/ BLOGGER TO ACCOUNT, ONE MUST BE H-I-G-H-L-Y D-I-S-T-R-U-S-T-F-U-L-- Y-E-A, S-U-S-P-I-C-I-O-U-S!-- OF A-N-Y POLICE AGENCY THAT WOULD DIRECTLY, AND/ OR INDIRECTLY MARGINALIZE THE THREAT THAT SUCH POSES TO AMERICAN CITIZENS!!... LET ALONE, TO HILLARY CLINTON!! AND!... A FAILURE TO GO AFTER SUCH AS THAT AS AFORENOTED, WOULD-- S-H-O-U-L-D!-- COMPEL THE QUESTIONS: WHO WAS/ IS BEHIND SUCH A REPORT?... AND!... IS THERE A-N-Y V-E-R-A-C-I-T-Y TO THE REPORT? AND RE THE LATTER QUESTION!... A-N-Y I-N-D-I-C-A-T-I-O-N TOWARD THE A-F-F-I-R-M-A-T-I-V-E, WOULD SUBJECT THE VERY F-B-I TO CROSS-EXAMINATION, RE C-O-M-P-L-I-C-I-T-Y I-N F-E-L-O-N-I-O-U-S C-R-I-M-E-S, IN THEIR "GREEN-LIGHTING" OF HILLARY CLINTON'S EMAILS! THAT IS TO SAY!... AND IN THAT EVENT!... IF THERE IS, INDEED, ANY "U-N-T-R-A-M-M-E-L-E-D A-N-D U-N-T-A-I-N-T-E-D" FEDERAL POLICING AUTHORITY LEFT STANDING IN AMERICA, THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS SUCH FELONIOUS CONDUCT, BY WAY OF THE FBI!!)
.
And in light of the tactic and strategy of the professing Christian members of the GOP to use scripture in their defence of their aggressive acts, I thought it appropriate to add a few scriptural references here, to counter some "misguided" and "erroneous" assumptions!
.
In Romans, Chapter 13: 1-3, Christians-- in particular (but, not exclusively!)!-- are to be subject to that which is in authority! And!... the PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY within a democratic country (at least!), is a country's respective National Constitution!... AND, WHICH-- INVARIABLY!-- CONTAINS RIGHTS, AND FREEDOMS! And so!... for the blogger within this abovenoted URL to resist such!... and in keeping with Romans 13: 1-3!... IS TO RESIST GOD'S COMMAND, AND AUTHORITY!... AND, HIS HOLY SPIRIT!! And so!... compelling the question: "Where's the FBI?"
.
Furthermore!... Proverbs 6: 16-19 [NIV] states...
.
16) There are six things the Lord hates... seven, that are D-E-T-E-S-T-A-B-L-E to him:...
.
17) 1. Haughty eyes,
.
2. A lying tongue,
.
3. Hands that shed innocent blood,
.
18) 4. A heart that devises wicked schemes,
.
5. Feet that are quick to rush into evil,
.
19) 6. A false witness who pours out lies,
.
7. A-N-D A P-E-R-S-O-N W-H-O S-T-I-R-S U-P C-O-N-F-L-I-C-T I-N T-H-E C-O-M-M-U-N-I-T-Y. [NIV]
.
To sum up... now that the matter of Clinton's emails would appear to have been resolved, what we're now left with, are a series of Internet media reports, which reveal amassed evidence concerning the complicit involvement of Donald Trump, in C-H-I-L-D A-B-U-S-E/ C-H-I-L-D R-A-P-E!... and as indicated in the info-- ILLEGALLY, or serendipitously!-- at, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html... and... http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/306274/trump-court-date-set-jane-doe-child-rape-lawsuit/... and... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit... and... http://www.inquisitr.com/3597538/donald-trumps-underage-rape-accusations-could-be-the-deathbed-of-hi s-political-aspirations/... and... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-rape-sexual-assault-claim s-court-republican-party-us-presidential-florida-a7360636.html... and... http://theproudliberal.org/sworn-testimony-from-trump-rape-case-finally-released-looks-bad-for-trump / ! And, the which-- and despite Trump's SET court date for December 16!-- should compel an IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION by the FBI, into these C-H-I-L-D A-B-U-S-E/ C-H-I-L-D R-A-P-E allegations (and, regardless of the said withdrawal of the allegation of RAPE by the alleged victim, on November the 4th!... due to said fears for her life!)!... and!... if need be!... Donald Trump's ARREST!!
.
Simply put!... either this alleged victim is held to account for propagating "FAKE NEWS (YEA, C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L M-I-S-C-H-I-E-F!... A-T L-E-A-S-T!)" by way of her testimony (and a testimony, incidentally, reportedly backed up by other witnesses!)!... or Trump should be held to account before a CRIMINAL COURT OF LAW! There can be NO MORATORIUM regarding an allegation of C-H-I-L-D A-B-U-S-E/ C-H-I-L-D R-A-P-E!!... and, which has been said re numerous other CHILD ABUSE/ C-H-I-L-D R-A-P-E allegations! And!... if an American state would contend that there is such a MORATORIUM, then there's a clear case for a Constitutional challenge re DUE PROCESS under the 5th Amendment, and a case of a denial of EQUAL PROTECTION under the 14th Amendment, re states that/ which do not have such a MORATORIUM! In other words, Trump can't hide behind a state's claim that a state-legislated MORATORIUM holds sway over DUE PROCESS and EQUAL PROTECTION!! But also!... no one making such a claim (and given the seriousness of same!), should be held blameless if such a claim is PROVEN to be false!... and so, N-E-C-E-S-S-I-T-A-T-I-N-G FBI involvement, and a court's determination (one way, or another!)!
.
Furthermore, we may very well find that the T-R-U-E R-E-A-S-O-N this character became involved in this race at this time, was to H-I-D-E from these allegations within the "smoke screen" of a Federal Presidential Election!... and!... I-N T-H-E G-U-I-S-E O-F S-E-R-V-I-N-G H-I-S C-O-U-N-T-R-Y! And... honestly!... I wouldn't put it past this "huxster" and "hustler" to have "played" the RNC, America, and his alleged RAPE VICTIM (and her family!), in order to escape the "cuffs of justice"!!... at least, given what we've come to learn about his misogynist hubris!
.
Simply put!... if what is alleged of Donald Trump is T-R-U-E, THEN THIS "PRESIDENT TO-BE", S-H-O-U-L-D N-O-T H-O-L-D O-F-F-I-C-E!! I-N-D-E-E-D!... N-O P-R-E-S-I-D-E-N-T-I-A-L W-A-N-N-A_B-E U-N-D-E-R S-U-C-H A C-L-O-U-D, S-H-O-U-L-D B-E E-N-T-I-T-L-E-D T-O B-E I-N T-H-E W-H-I-T-E H-O-U-S-E! AND TRUMP SHOULD HAVE BEEN-- AND SHOULD BE NOW!-- C-O-M-P-E-L-L-E-D T-O S-T-E-P D-O-W-N!! Unless... and of course!... the reports that Huffington Post (and MANY others!) have been publicizing, are all "FAKE NEWS", and created by "ghost writers"!... and!... are but further examples, of "NETTROLLICIDE"!! And, the which... in that event!... should be held LIBELOUS (and regardless of any initiative by Donald Trump!... and, regardless of whoever proffered such "FAKE NEWS"!)! Or!... S-U-C-H B-E A-C-T-E-D U-P-O-N!
.
In other words, the FBI should be addressing such "FAKE NEWS"!... OR ACTING UPON LEGIT NEWS ACCOUNTS, THAT HAVE REPORTED ACCURATE CLAIMS INVOLVING DONALD TRUMP IN ACTS OF C-H-I-L-D A-B-U-S-E/ C-H-I-L-D R-A-P-E!!
.
In addition to what may be true or bogus in a host of reports flying around the Net that Netizens (and American voters!) should have been-- but, should be!-- up in arms about pertaining to the once candidates in this now nigh past U.S. Federal Election (save, for the meeting of the Electors on December 19, and the meeting of Congress on January 6, 2017!), we can add this previously cited "CRIMINAL TALE" involving Hillary Clinton, to the list (though, I'm inclined to view the reports about Trump, as ACCURATE!)! Freedom of the Press is one thing!... but!... Freedom to create HAVOC through "FAKE NEWS", is quite another!! And it's this HAVOC!... this attempted NETTROLLICIDE (if proven to be so!)!... that the FBI is-- apparently!-- NOW honing in on (i.e., re their recent preoccupation with "FAKE NEWS"!)!!... and attempting to end (ummm!)!! Although!... and despite the veracity of the evidence pertaining to Trump reported by the Huffington Post (among others!), the NECESSARY INVESTIGATION concerning the allegations involving Donald Trump, have yet to be given as much consideration as the "reports" of "FAKE NEWS"!!
.
And so... and again!... if the FBI would consider the reports covered by the Huffington Post (among others!) as "FAKE NEWS", THEN THE FBI SHOULD DO ITS JOB, AND SHUT DOWN THIS BREACH OF THE U.S. FEDERAL STALKING STATUTE (AND THEREBY, THE BREACH OF THE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SECURITY OF THE PERSON OF DONALD TRUMP!)!... AND, HOLD TO ACCOUNT THE "INSTIGATING/ INITIATING AUTHORS" OF THIS "FAKE NEWS (VICTIM, OR OTHERWISE!)"!!
.
But!... if the media reports alleging Donald Trump's involvement in C-H-I-L-D A-B-U-S-E/ C-H-I-L-D R-A-P-E can't be challenged (i.e., because these reports are "REAL NEWS"!)!... and the "victim" is compelled to follow-through with her "civic duty" to finalize her court challenge (by mandating policing protection for her!... and, because the FBI, and she, would be-- AND SHOULD BE!-- held criminally and tortiously accountable for failing to complete a process that she began!), then the FBI is "DUTY BOUND" to effect the necessary criminal investigation, and any concomitant subsequent criminal arrest!
.
And, last of all... GALATIANS 6: 7, states... "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. Whatever a man sows, he will reap in return (BUT NOTE THE ENSUING, LUKE 10: 16!)." [NIV]
.
Luke 10: 16, states... "Whoever listens to you (a Christian Messenger!) listens to Me (Jesus Christ!); whoever rejects you (a Christian Messenger!) rejects Me (Jesus Christ!); but whoever rejects Me (Jesus Christ!) rejects Him who sent Me (GOD!)!" [NIV]
.
And Matthew 25: 40, states... "And the King answering, will say to them, "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these brothers of Mine (E.G., ABUSING A CHILD; FAILING TO ADHERE TO ROMANS 13: 1-3; AND, FAILING TO ADHERE TO A COUNTRY'S GODLY INSPIRED PARAMOUNT LAW, AND LESSER LAWS, IN REGARD TO THE NEEDS OF ONE OF THE LEAST OF THOSE OF CHRIST!), you did it to M-E." [Berean Literal Bible]
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 11 Dec 2016 @ 6:50am
  
  Re: FAKE VS REAL NEWS
  
  B-U-L-L-S-E-Y-E, Mike!... and!... not only do we need NET NEUTRALITY, we need SEARCH NEUTRALITY!
  
  TechDirt's position on search neutrality if you're interested:
  
  https://www.techdirt.com/search-g.php?q=search+neutrality
  
  I did not read the rest of your comment btw.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JOHN MAYOR, 11 Dec 2016 @ 1:20pm
    
    Re: Re: FAKE VS REAL NEWS
    Thanks!... I'm glad to know you're in support of the notion of Search Neutrality! Btw!... I hope you can get that "reading thing" solved soon!... and to start off, you should begin with some comic book story lines, and then graduate to cook books (which also have colorful pics!)!
    ,
    Please!... no emails!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 11 Dec 2016 @ 4:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: FAKE VS REAL NEWS
      
      I'm glad to know you're in support of the notion of Search Neutrality
      
      Where did you get that idea?
      
      I hope you can get that "reading thing" solved soon
      
      My reading is fine, it's your writing that needs work.
      
      Please... no faxes!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JOHN MAYOR, 12 Dec 2016 @ 8:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: FAKE VS REAL NEWS
        Well!... oh "betwixt the lines reader", and "scribbler extraordinaire"!... I have not-- and have never been!-- a "writer" on Techdirt! I key_in characters on a laptop keyboard, which are converted to symbols on a computer screen! And so... it's one thing for a WANNA-BE Comment Logger to be able read a MORE MATURE Comment Log than one is able to craft for one's self, it's quite another, to C-O-M-P-R-E-H-E-N-D same!
        .
        And so!... I apologize!... my mistake!... I wasn't aware of the FACT that I was responding to an I-M-B-E-C-I-L-E! Thanks for clearing that up! Buh bye!
        .
        Please!... no emails!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 12 Dec 2016 @ 11:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAKE VS REAL NEWS
        
        And so!... I apologize!... my mistake!
        
        No need to apologize, just stop writing incomprehensible and incoherent screeds.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jupiterkansas (profile), 12 Dec 2016 @ 11:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAKE VS REAL NEWS
        At least stop putting dashes between letters and using ALL CAPS - they don't make your point any clearer, they just make things impossible to read. One look at it and I don't want to read it. It's not cute or clever or comprehensible. Grammar has rules for a reason.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JOHN MAYOR, 13 Dec 2016 @ 6:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAKE VS REAL NEWS
        TEXTUAL SCREAMING: OR DELUSIONAL BEHAVIOR
        .
        .
        ATTENTION!:... LARGE LETTERING IN A "PASSIVE TEXTUAL COMMENT" D-O-E-S N-O-T T-R-A-N-S-L-A-T-E TO "S-C-R-E-A-M-I-N-G"!... THAT CONCLUSION WOULD BE THE "D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L SIDE EFFECT/ SEQUELA/ EPIPHENOMENON" OF PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION, EXCESSIVE ALCOHOL USE, PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS, BRAIN TRAUMA, SOME GENETIC-BASED COGNITIVE PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGIC MALFORMATION (E.G., INBREEDING!... AND POST-CONCEPTION!)!... OR!... IT SIMPLY COULD BE ONE TOO MANY ALLIES ROLLING AROUND IN A TIN CAN, IN WHAT MAY BE P-A-S-S-I-N-G (OR, A-T-T-E-M-P-T-I-N-G T-O P-A-S-S!) FOR A F-U-N-C-T-I-O-N-I-N-G B-R-A-I-N!! AND!... THE COVERT AND OVERT M-O-L-E-S-T-A-T-I-O-N OF THOSE WHO USE LARGE LETTERING BY "P-S-E-U-D-O-G-R-A-M-M-A-R P-O-L-I-C-E"/ CLIQUES, IS N-O-T-H-I-N-G L-E-S-S THAN SOCIOPSYCHOPATHIC "P-S-E-U-D-O-G-R-A-M-M-A-T-I-C B-U-L-L-Y-I-N-G"!!
        .
        LARGE LETTERING, IS USED TO E-M-B-O-L-D-E-N T-H-E E-M-P-H-A-S-I-S OF U-N-E-M-B-O-L-D-E-N-E-D REGULAR/ NORMAL SIZED TEXT!... AND IN A FASHION, SIMILAR TO QUOTATION MARKS!... AND!... HAS N-O-T-H-I-N-G T-O D-O WITH S-O-U-N-D!
        .
        HYPHENS!... WHETHER USED BETWEEN REGULAR/ NORMAL SIZED TEXT IN AN EXPRESSION, OR BETWEEN EMBOLDENED/ LARGER SIZED TEXT IN AN EXPRESSION, ARE USED TO EFFECT AN A-R-T-I-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N OF A GIVEN "T-E-X-T-U-A-L E-X-P-R-E-S-S-I-O-N"!... AND!... TO DELIBERATELY "R-E-L-A-X"/ S-L-O-W D-O-W-N THE READING OF AN EXPRESSION, IN ORDER TO A-R-T-I-C-U-L-A-T-E "H-E-I-G-H-T-E-N-E-D A-T-T-E-N-T-I-O-N" TO PARTICULAR EXPRESSIONS THAT ARE DEEMED I-N-T-E-G-R-A-L TO A MESSAGE/ CONCEPT BEING COMMUNICATED! AND, AGAIN!... THE USE OF HYPHENS H-A-V-E N-O-T-H-I-N-G T-O D-O WITH S-O-U-N-D!
        .
        ELLIPSES!... ARE USED TO EFFECT A DELIBERATE BREAK IN WHAT WOULD-- OTHERWISE-- BE A "QUICKENED" CONTIGUOUS SENTENCE, USING "CONVENTIONAL" SENTENCE STRUCTURE, AND PUNCTUATION! THEY ARE USED TO ARTICULATE A SENTENCE IN THE SAME MANNER A HYPHEN MIGHT BE USED TO A-R-T-I-C-U-L-A-T-E A WORD!... AND, TO "R-E-L-A-X"/ S-L-O-W D-O-W-N THE MESSAGE BEING COMMUNICATED, IN WHAT WOULD-- OTHERWISE-- BE A MORE "HURRIED" CONVENTIONAL SENTENCE STRUCTURE! AND!... IS COMPARABLE-- I'LL SUGGEST!-- TO S-A-V-O-U-R-I-N-G AN AFFORDABLE FINE WINE!... AS APPOSED, TO "GULPING IT DOWN"!
        .
        LASTLY!... EXCLAMATION MARKS-- FOR ME!-- ARE PREFERRED OVER PERIODS, AS I DESIRE "L-U-C-I-D A-T-T-E-N-T-A-T-I-V-E-N-E-S-S" TO THE IDEAS/ NOTIONS/ CONCEPTS BEING COMMUNICATED! AND ONCE AGAIN!... THEIR USE HAS N-O-T-H-I-N-G T-O D-O WITH S-O-U-N-D!... N-O-T-H-I-N-G T-O D-O WITH "M-A-N-I-C S-Y-N-T-A-X"!... OR "M-A-N-I-C S-E-L-F E-X-P-R-E-S-S-I-O-N"! THE "M-A-N-I-A" WITHIN THE MINDS OF SOME NETTROLLIANS, FROM NETTROLLIA, ATTEMPTING NETTROLLICIDE, IS SIMPLY THE "LEARNED ASSOCIATION" OF LARGE LETTERING, WITH SOUND!... AND/ OR!... EVIDENCE, OF S-Y-N-E-S-T-H-E-S-I-A!
        .
        I DON'T DELIBERATELY CHOOSE TO EXPRESS MYSELF USING "HYPERVERBOSITY"!... OR EVEN VERBOSITY! MY WORDS... AT TIMES!... MAY BE MANY!... BUT, THESE ARE CHOSEN CAREFULLY!... AND ARE MEANT TO EXPRESS-- EFFICIENTLY, AND EFFECTIVELY!-- WHAT IS E-S-S-E-N-T-I-A-L FOR T-H-O-U-G-H-T-F-U-L R-E-A-D-E-R-S TO ENTERTAIN/ RECEIVE! AND, UNLIKE "T-R-U-M-P-I-A-N T-H-I-N-K-E-R-S", I DON'T JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS "E-A-S-E O-F A-C-C-E-S-S"!... NOR, A WOMAN BY THE PRESUMED "E-A-S-E O-F H-E-R G-E-N-I-T-A-L A-C-C-E-S-S"! AND SO!... IF MY WORDS APPEAR TO BE "I-N-A-C-C-E-S-S-I-B-L-E" TO YOU... T-O-O B-A-D! I'M NOT "DUMBING DOWN"!... LIKE SOME OF TRUMP'S VICTIMS!... JUST SO Y-O-U, CAN "G-E-T O-F-F"!
        .
        YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO "P-L-A-Y" WITH YOU OWN "D-U-M-B-*-S-S E-X-P-R-E-S-S-I-O-N-S"!... AND SYNTAX!... IN ORDER TO DO THAT! BUH BYE!
        .
        Please!... no emails!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jupiterkansas (profile), 13 Dec 2016 @ 12:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAKE VS REAL NEWS
        Yep, definitely deranged.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 13 Dec 2016 @ 12:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAKE VS REAL NEWS
        I wonder what he's like in real life.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jupiterkansas (profile), 13 Dec 2016 @ 5:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAKE VS REAL NEWS
        If he talks like he writes, which I suspect he does, then he's an obnoxious boor.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 11 Dec 2016 @ 12:45pm
  
  Re: FAKE VS REAL NEWS
  This human being is full-on deranged.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JOHN MAYOR, 11 Dec 2016 @ 1:37pm
    
    Re: Re: FAKE VS REAL NEWS
    I'm sorry you're having such difficulties!.. I truly hope you receive the help you need! Maybe!... and if you have some time!... you can prepare a comment here, explaining what your issues are, and I'll attempt to address them!! Stay healthy!!... and you'd do well to pray once in a while!... as it may be a "spiritual thing"! Bye bye!... for now!
    .
    Please!... no emails!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wyrm (profile), 11 Dec 2016 @ 3:24pm

Somehow, "net neutrality" has a clear definition but every politician and lobbyist out there feign to ignore it. They each create their own strawman definition of it, then explain how this new definition is bad for everyone.

- they pretend it's about giving edge providers free access to Internet and customers. It's not, as edge provided already pay huge amounts for their connectivity. ISPs simply want to double their bills by getting paid more for no additional service or investment.
- they pretend neutrality is about forcing equal access to everyone. Still wrong, as people can pay different amounts fit different bandwidth or quality of service. It only means that data cannot be tampered or discriminated.
- and then you have this legislator who tried to say neutrality applies where it doesn't (equal speech time out visibility). That's just idiotic.

Of course, that's not all, but it's a pretty good sample.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sean, 12 Dec 2016 @ 8:21am

Use your brain
I don't know how about people use their brain and see if a story stands up to the logic test. Look at where the story comes from. Also look and see what other stories the source publishes to see if they are pushing a particular agenda. By the way pretty much all news sources have an agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]