Facebook’s new guide to spotting fake news.

Facebook’s war against common sense continues.

Facebook has been spamming  alerting users about how to spot fake news or ‘false news’ as they call it. It’s an insult to most people’s intelligence, but for the sake up absolute clarity, I thought I’d go through each ‘helpful’ tip one step at a time.

 

Here they are along with my own advice on what it means.

1. Be sceptical of headlines:

False news stories often have catch headlines in all caps with exclamation points. If shocking claims in the headlines sound unbelievable they probably are.

Yes some headlines are very misleading.

fake news

The above headline is from  a fake story. Russia and Iran have said quite the opposite. The fake story was exposed in an exclusive report in The Duran.  So yes, be careful of false and misleading headlines.

2. Look closely at the URL:

A phony or look-alike URL may be a warning sound of false news. Many false news sites mimic authentic news stories by making small changes the URL. You can go to the site to compare the URL to established sources.

If you go to www.cnn.com, you may think that you are entering a news website but you are actually entering a site dedicated to pro-Clinton family propaganda where the truth is as expendable as a young intern.

Also beware of www.clintonfoundation.com

It may look like a harmless lobbying website,  but unless you’re as rich as the King of Saudi Arabia, but prepared to be in heavy debt.

3. Investigate the source:

Ensure that the story is written by a source you trust with a reputation for accuracy. If the story comes from an unfamiliar organisation, check their ‘About’ section to learn more.

It is always important to check the agenda of your source, even if the agenda isn’t well hidden.

bbc_news_logo

Although a favourite among smug liberals, the British Broadcasting Corporation is a state-owned entity of the British state, paid for through a compulsory regressive tax.

The ‘news’ on the BBC aims to push the globalist agenda of the very boring, arrogant and dangerous British elite.

Be careful!

4. Watch for unusual formatting:

Many false news sites have misspellings or awkward layouts. Read carefully if you see these signs.

Not just layouts. Here’s another classic from the BBC when they interviewed the wrong man.

5. Consider the photos:

False news stories often contain manipulated images or videos. Sometimes the photos may be authentic, but taken out of context. You can search for the photo or image to verify where it came from.

Here are some images of men pretending to handle sarin gas. If this was real sarin gas, these men would all be dead.

Of course it’s the White Helmets, a group of frauds working with al-Qaeda to spread fake news.

With acting this bad, I cannot understand why they won the Oscar.

6. Inspect the dates:

False news stories may contain timelines that make no sense, or event dates that have been altered.

Look closely at the dates of these Donald Trump Tweets in this article and decide if The Donald was faking it then or now?

7. Check the evidence:

Check the author’s sources to confirm they are accurate. Lack of evidence or reliance on unnamed experts may indicate it is a false news story.

If the sources relied on cite the follow: The Turkish government, the US government, the Saudi government, the Qatari government, the Israeli government, the EU, the Ukrainian government or the UK government….it’s probably false information.

8. Look at other reports:

If no other news source is reporting the same story, it may indicate that the story is false. If the story is reported by multiple outlooks you trust, it’s more likely to be true.

Or it could be that mainstream media if not reporting it. Never check a story against the following sources:

New York Times, CNN, BBC, MSNBC, Washington Post. 

9. Is the story a joke?

Sometimes false news stories can be hard to distinguish from humour or satire. Check whether the source is known for parody and whether the story’s details and tone suggest it may just be for fun.

See section 8

10. Some stories are intentionally false:

Think critically about the stories you read and only share news you know to be credible.

AKA, don’t rely on Facebook to tell you the truth, USE YOUR BRAIN!

By: Adam Garrie

Source: theduran

Share This:

Islamic State Hackers (Cyber Khilafah) Publish “How to Guide” Encouraging Muslims To Poison Westerners On An Encrypted App.

Hackers posted a step-by-step guide on how to poison unbelievers, which has already been downloaded by dozens of brainwashed followers.

The group, called Cyber Khilafah, uploaded the guide onto the Telegram app describing how to make the home-made poisons and kill non-Muslims.

The manual, titled “The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook,” details how to make dangerous poisons and gases along with listing lethal substances such as chlorine, phosphorus and carbon monoxide and where to get them.

Jihadi Abel Aziz authored the deadly guide, which is being used by ISIS terrorists.

The guide claims to have tested the lethal substances on animals, and details how a rabbit “shrieked immediately” and died with blood spilling from its mouth after being given poison by a wannabe jihadi.

Along with the detailed instructions and diagrams, the manual cautions would-be jihadis to be careful when preparing the concoctions.

It warns: “Be very careful when preparing poisons. It is much, much more dangerous than preparing explosives!

“I know several Mujahids whose bodies are finished due to poor protection etc.

“On the positive side, you can be confident that the poisons have actually been tried and tested (successfully, he he!).”

 

In the past, the Cyber Kahilafah group has targeted ISIS enemies on the Telegram app.

Guides on how to make IED bombs have been posted on the app by the group, which can be accessed by any follower from around the world.

The app is said to encrypt messages from users to help jihadis avoid detection from security services.

Terror expert Neil Doyle said: “The emergence of such guides on Telegram is a cause for great concern, as they can be distributed far and wide in a very short time.

“There is great danger in the proliferation of this type of material, as would-be terrorists may seek to use them to cause mayhem in so-called lone wolf attacks.

“Also, the use of encryption potentially make tracing the people receiving these documents more difficult for the authorities.

“There is evidence to suggest that this guide may have been used in one suspected failed attack in London some years ago.”

Adel Kermiche, who slaughtered an elderly priest in Normandy last month, boasted on the app “you take a knife, you go into a church, you cause carnage” before the savage killing.

Share This:

Susan Rice ‘Unmasking’ Story Once Again Highlights the Worthlessness of Corporate Media.

Yesterday, Mike Cernovich published explosive claims that Obama’s National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, has been behind the “unmasking” of certain Trump advisors in relation to their conversations with foreign officials under routine surveillance. He noted:

The White House Counsel’s office identified Rice as the person responsible for the unmasking after examining Rice’s document log requests. The reports Rice requested to see are kept under tightly-controlled conditions. Each person must log her name before being granted access to them.

Upon learning of Rice’s actions, H. R. McMaster dispatched his close aide Derek Harvey to Capitol Hill to brief Chairman Nunes.

“Unmasking” is the process of identifying individuals whose communications were caught in the dragnet of intelligence gathering. While conducting investigations into terrorism and other related crimes, intelligence analysts incidentally capture conversations about parties not subject to the search warrant. The identities of individuals who are not under investigation are kept confidential, for legal and moral reasons.

When I first read the piece last night it caught my attention due to the very specific claims made by Cernovich not just related to Susan Rice, but also Maggie Haberman of The New York Times. Considering Cernovich had just been labeled CEO of America’s “fake news” empire during a 60 Minutes expose, I considered it unlikely that’d he’d go out with such claims unless he felt pretty confident in their validity. Then today, Eli Lake of Bloomberg News confirmed the main part of this story, and added some additional nuggets.

From Bloomberg:

White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The pattern of Rice’s requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government’s policy on “unmasking” the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like “U.S. Person One.”

The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations — primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.  

Rice did not respond to an email seeking comment on Monday morning. Her role in requesting the identities of Trump transition officials adds an important element to the dueling investigations surrounding the Trump White House since the president’s inauguration.

Now here’s where it gets particularly problematic for Susan Rice.

Rice herself has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking. Last month when she was asked on the “PBS NewsHour” about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said: “I know nothing about this,” adding, “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today.”

Either Cernovich and Eli Lake are lying, or Susan Rice has a big fat problem. Perhaps 60 Minutes should do an expose on her penchant for her looseness with the truth, but I’m not holding my breath.

 

While all that’s interesting enough, I want to zero in on another claim made by Cernovich. He wrote:

This reporter has been informed that Maggie Haberman has had this story about Susan Rice for at least 48 hours, and has chosen to sit on it in an effort to protect the reputation of former President Barack Obama.

This line caught my attention as much as the Rice claims when I first read it. This is a very specific claim, about a very specific reporter, and if true, would be another major embarrassment for corporate media.

While it appears Haberman herself has been quiet on the subject, The Daily Caller reported the following:

Cernovich said in his report Sunday that New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman knew about the Rice requests, and “has chosen to sit on it in an effort to protect the reputation of former President Barack Obama.” A New York Times spokeswoman told The Daily Caller, “Cernovich’s claim regarding Maggie Haberman is 100 percent false.”

I don’t know what’s more embarrassing. The New York Times potentially sitting on this story, or that sources feel more comfortable going to a guy blogging his gym pants with scoops versus the “paper of record.”

In any event, this whole drama sets up the corporate media for more embarrassment going forward. All any source has to do to ruin 60 Minutes forever, is keep feeding Cernovich real news. We live in interesting times, and it’s only going to get more interesting.

Corporate media has no one to blame but themselves. It has completely failed the American public.

BY: Michael Krieger

Source: libertyblitzkrieg.com

Share This:

US to train kids to handle fake news.

A pilot education programme in the US is training kids to spot the difference between fake and real news.

12-year-old students at Clemente Middle School in Germantown, Maryland is one of several schools worldwide which wants to train kids for the reality of living in an online world of fake news.  It is not the only one. In the Czech Republic, high schools teach teens to identify propaganda from Russia and in Sweden, students as young as 10, are trained to spot the difference between news and Fox, er fake news.

In Pennsylvania, a state lawmaker wants mandatory media literacy classes in all public schools.

“The sophistication in how this false information is disguised and spread can make it very difficult for someone, particularly young people, to determine fact from fiction,” says Rep. Tim Briggs.

A survey by Common Sense Media said that while kids are good at consuming news they are rubbish when it comes to spotting what is real and what isn’t.

More than 44 percent of tweens and teens said they can tell the difference between fake news stories and real ones. But more than 30 percent admitted they shared a news story online — only to find out later that it was wrong or inaccurate.

The problem is that anyone can publish anything on the web and drilling the kids with a list of questions about a story could be the key.

One course created by the nonprofit, the News Literacy Project that teachers from California to Virginia are adding to their classrooms. It includes a 10-question checklist for identifying fake news.

  • Who made this?
  • Who is making money off it?
  • Who might help or be harmed by this message?
  • What is left out of this message that might be important?
  • Is this credible (and what makes you think that)?

Other red flags include the lack of a by-line. A headline which is ALL CAPS or has shedloads of exclamation marks.

A story which promising you something “the media” does not want you to know is almost certainly fake.

Teachers say it’s working. Part of the reason: Kids, particularly middle schoolers, are inherently cynical and once they know the rules they are not sucked in.

By:

Source: TechEye

Share This:

6.5 Million Taxpayers Paid $3 Billion in Obamacare Penalties in 2016.

A sign outside the Internal Revenue Service is seen August 8, 2015 in Washington, DC. AFP PHOTO / KAREN BLEIER (Photo credit should read KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)

Penalties paid to the IRS nearly doubled since 2014.

Approximately 6.5 million taxpayers paid $3 billion in Obamacare penalties for not having health insurance in 2016, according to preliminary data from the Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen.

Beginning in 2014, the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate required that Americans purchase health care coverage or pay a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service.

While the number of taxpayers paying the penalty has declined since 2014, the total amount in penalties paid to the IRS has increased since then.

In 2014, individuals without insurance had to pay the greater penalty of either a flat fee of $95 or 1 percent of the household’s adjusted gross income in excess of the threshold for mandatory tax filing. In 2016, those penalties increased to a flat fee of $695 or 2.5 percent of the adjusted gross income.

In 2014, Koskinen’s preliminary data showed that there were 7.5 million taxpayers who paid a total of $1.5 billion in Obamacare penalties. Final data from the IRS, however, showed those numbers increase to 8.1 million taxpayers paying a total of $1.7 billion in Obamacare penalties.

Koskinen’s preliminary data from 2016 shows that there were 6.5 million taxpayers paying a total of $3 billion in Obamacare penalties, which is nearly double what the IRS collected in 2014. As in 2014, final IRS data may show an increase in these numbers when it is released.

In 2016, the IRS reports that the average penalty paid was around $470 and that about 70 percent of payments were $500 or less, while only 7 percent of payments were $100 or less. There were 117 million tax returns of individuals who had qualifying health care coverage all year and 12.7 million taxpayers claimed an exemption to get out of paying the mandate. According to the IRS, the most common exemption occurs when a household’s income is less than the tax-filing threshold.

This year, the IRS is easing requirements for Obamacare’s individual mandate, after President Donald Trump signed an executive order requiring that federal agencies reduce the burden of Obamacare. Now, the IRS will not require taxpayers to indicate whether or not they have health insurance.

Source: freebeacon.com

Share This: