I think you're confusing op-eds with news reporting. It's not uncommon for op-eds to have "point/counterpoint" style pieces. It sounds like that's what you saw. But an opinion piece is very different than "fake news."
That doesn't indicate changing someone's mind. That suggests just that someone likely predisposed to believing crazy false conspiracy theories about the Clintons believed one. My point is that it's not making Trump supporters like Clinton or vice versa.
So the list the WaPo published presumably only included right leaning sites and it could be argued that the WaPo is not absent malice in opposing such sites whose views differ mightily from it's editorial board. The WaPo should have known the story was bogus as other newspapers did but it furthered their narrative so they went with it. Could it be considered defamation? Doesn't appear to be as open or shut a case as you intimate Mike.
First of all, the WaPo didn't publish any list. It wrote an article about an organization. That organization published a list. WaPo did not.
Second, the list did not just include right leaning sites. It did include many, but also some left leaning sites. For example, Antiwar, Truthout & TruthDig are all considered left leaning.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Considering how may article titles on Tech Dirt say "Trump"
Sorry, but the left are the ones labeling and name calling and losing because of it. There is a complete refusal from the left to talk policy.
The only one labeling others that I see here is you. Also, have you realized yet that this story has nothing to do with Trump at all? Why make it about that?
I've been saying for a while that any comment that talks about "the right" or "the left" is almost 100% devoid of actual content. You're name calling for no reason other than tribalism. You want to talk policy? Stop with the team sports bullshit and talk actual policy. Starting with this post: let's talk about the problems of surveillance. We started with the post. You then shat in the comments about blue team/red team, rather than actually adding to the discussion about policy.
The idea that Techdirt was ever "pro-Hillary" is the most laughable thing I've seen. Can anyone point to anything positive we ever said about Clinton? Some people just keep insisting that anyone who criticizes Trump must be pro-Hillary. And all that does is reveal that they root for a team, and don't care about actual policies. This is true of many supporters of either candidate. It becomes rooting for a team or even a religion, rather than anything rational.
We haven't changed our position: we focus on policies and statements made by people, rather than what team they're on. It's why we rarely even mention party names, and why over the years we've criticized people from both major parties pretty much equally.
I know it's tough for Trump supporters to recognize this, but believing he's going to be a disaster doesn't mean we didn't also think Clinto would be a disaster (for what it's worth, I thought basically every candidate would have been a disaster and I wish we had a better system for finding a President).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now Trump is a book burner?
Getting quite testy these days.
No. Just sick of idiots who view everything on a left/right spectrum that isn't even remotely accurate. You keep attacking 'the left' as anything that disagrees with you.
Also, I notice that rather than respond to the multiple factual errors you made, you just attack me based on more falsehoods. This is not symptomatic of "the left" or "the right" but of foolish blowhards who identify more with a team than with reality. Stop identifying with a team and start learning.
The fact that you don't see the correlation between the leftist media blaming "fake" news for causing Hillary's loss as the first step to controlling the news and therefore the message is sad.
Um. You realize that I was one of the first to call out this exact risk, saying that the blaming of fake news is stupid, and a slippery slope to censorship:
EFF Deeplinks blog still doesn't have ANY comment section. But of course you won't write about THAT.
Um. You want us to write about every random website that doesn't decide to turn on comments? Why?
Should EFF's blog have comments? Sure. Maybe.
But that wasn't the issue here that were talking about. This was about media companies who HAD comments and basically ignored them until shutting them down claiming they were doing it because they were so interested in listening to their community.
Do you not do nuance? Or were you just trying (and failing) to be snarky?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now Trump is a book burner?
Just look at FB, Google and Twitter. All founded by leftists who now wish to censor "fake" news.
Just so you know, basically everything in that sentence is flat out false. They were not founded by "leftists" (you might be able to make the case that one Twitter founder would be considered a "leftist" but even that's a stretch -- none of them are easily defined on the silly "left/right" political spectrum. Second, none of them wish to censor fake news. In fact, all three companies have actively resisted demands that it do so.
So, yeah. Get out of your bubble. You've been fed a line of bullshit.
Mike, do you have a preference for which vehicle receives support. I assume support directly through the Insider Shop would do the most good.
We want people to feel comfortable supporting us however they want -- that's the most important thing. Lots of folks seem to really like Patreon and we were interested in using the platform. So for people who want to support us that way, it's great. In terms of direct monetary contribution, sure, supporting us directly via the Insider Shop means more of the money goes directly to us (we still have some transaction costs) and it's more integrated into the site. But, really, it's up to everyone what they're most comfortable doing.
Are existing monthly donations handled by Beacon in any way?
If you're just supporting us directly via the Insider Shop, then no. Those are handled directly by us, and you don't need to change anything. For people who were paying us monthly via Beacon, they should have received notice a while back that those charges were no longer happening.
This is just another, different way for people to support what we do (and, in particular, to support the podcast).
I should have added, they went after Trump while ignoring the controversy around Hillary.
This is not even remotely true. The controversy around Clinton's email servers got a ridiculous amount of coverage. It was interesting to us here, because that was an issue that we had strong opinions on, but it far outweighed the seriousness of ths issue, and paled in comparison to coverage of Trump's equally problematic issues.
They ignored Wikileaks almost completely. Just like you are doing here.
Wha....? We covered Wikileaks and the press was ALL OVER Wikileaks leaks. The problem was that most of them were a giant nothingburger. Oh, the campaign had lunch with the press. That's what reporters do. They cultivate sources. The biggest revelation in the leaks was the Donna Brazile sending questions over (something we did cover).
The left are the ones living in their safe space bubble. After all, you don't see conservatives needing playdoh and puppy therapy on college campuses
Huh? What does that have to do with anything that we're discussing.
But when you call BS on Trump while completely ignoring the same BS or worse on Hillary and the DNC, then I have a problem.
That's the fucking problem here. I called out Clinton just as much as Trump during the campaign. And now she lost. There's nothing to cover on her any more. So I'm covering Trump and his idiotic statements just as I would now be covering Clinton and her idiotic statements.
Why don't you understand that?
But yes, I will immediately unsubscribe to this blog. Your angry, bitter posts have ruined this place and that is a real shame because you had a good thing going here.
You are the one asking people to leave so who is it exactly that is looking for a safe space?
The reference to a safe space is because all of you who keep falsely insisting that we've somehow become "biased" because we call out Trump's actions (just as we've called out Obama's) is somehow "bad" for this blog. It's as if you simply can't take anyone calling bullshit on the guy you support, and therefore are somehow demanding that we become a safe space for you. So, yes, I'm mocking the fact that folks who support Trump keep insisting they're against "safe spaces" but seem to be demanding that Techdirt become a kind of safe space.
I'm not demanding anyone leave. I'm just telling those who are threatening to leave as an attempt to make me change what I say that I don't care. I'm not doing this to make this a happy space for anyone. I'm doing this to speak my opinion on various matters, just as I always have. You can stay if you want. I'm not kicking anyone out. I'm just saying that if you're going to scream and whine about how you're going to leave if I keep calling bullshit on Trump, then leave. Don't act like you need to pressure me into changing my views.
Better question to be asking: why do these MILLIONS of people not have valid ID? (Or, to put it another way, if 90-99% of Americans can do it, what's stopping these guys?)
Great to see folks out there defending authoritarian bullshit like this. Come on, guys, you're better than this. There's a reason we don't require people to have a federal ID and if you don't understand that, you should do more research.
That is a problem even if Mike is 100% correct. It has been my observation that everyone yelling Bias is Biased, and I agree to being biased. Plus there is just no reason to alienate any potential readers. You cannot have good instruction if the first thing you students learn about you is that you think they suck and they need to leave!
Of course I have biases. And this is and always has been an opinion site in which I express my opinions. But calling Infowars a crackpot conspiracy theory site is not "bias." Facts are not "biased." InfoWars is a crackpot conspiracy theory site. Period.
Am I biased? Sure. I'm biased in favor of free expression, innovation, and civil liberties. I'm biased in favor of expanding an open internet and supporting competition.
I freely admit to these "biases." But having someone complain over calling InfoWars a crackpot site? That's ridiculous. If you don't think it's a crackpot site the problem is on your end, not mine.
Mike is biased, he just needs to admit it, there is nothing wrong with it, it's just a word... apparently a word he does not understand the meaning of while calling others ignorant of it in hypocrisy.
I understand the word just fine. It does not mean what you think it means. I'm not "biased" against InfoWars. I just am properly describing what kind of site it is.