We live in a time when anyone can post anything online and claim it is true. Some people believe such posts if they fit their preferred view of the world.
I have seen many, many postings in Answers and Forums as well as Hubs that are filled with gross inaccuracies, especially about politics. Posters often link the untruths back to anonymous blogger sites, Facebook accounts and other sites whose owners have a political agenda.
The credibility of HP can suffer from outsiders who see such postings. How can HP rise to a higher level of accountability with factual posts?
Tripling their staff? (obviously not feasible)
Me thinks you just pegged the reason Google hates multi-writer content sites.
Having managed sites in the past with thousands of weekly posts, I believe that it doesn't require tripling the staff. A step forward in building accuracy can be handled on a case-by-case basis with a focus on the worst examples.
For example, a post that Hillary Clinton is running a sex ring out of a New York pizza parlor can be flagged like a personal attack and removed.
Your point about Google is well taken.
If you want to know more about sex slavery and Hillary Clinton, you can read it right here on HubPages.
https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/Dr- … d-Survivor
https://hubpages.com/politics/Why-You-S … il-Scandal
https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/Why-D … an-Hacking
Not that I'm against your theory, but you failed to add the most critical step in decision-making from the leadership of HP.....MONEY. Cutting posts means less readers and that means less revenue.
Ralph, I don't disagree with your concern. I had a similar thought from a different point of view. I'm concerned that we might lose revenue and readership from people who disrespect HubPages because of fake news (from either the left or the right).
I missed that, and it's a good way to look at things. My two cents is that since fake news has been found on every website on the web (someone please correct me if I'm wrong here) including the AP, Reuters, and the rest of the big media, and they still get traffic. Why would HP be singled out?
AP, Reuters and others use editors to proof articles, fact check them, run apologies for errors, reprimand writers who make mistakes, fire them for making serious mistakes and go to court when sued for making serious mistakes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/gu … tions.html
I realize some people claim that responsible news sources distribute fake news because they don't like what's being reported.
I am not singling out HP. I am raising the issue because I write for HP and because the site has articles and posts with serious factual errors that come from anonymous political blogs.
There are vultures waiting around to pounce. Whatever topic you present can be taken over and turned into an argument about something completely different.
Some people require a steady diet of fake news. They search for it. They write it. They hang out in groups. When the group speaks, it is easy to influence the naive or feed the willing accomplices.
I haven't seen any of this, but that doesn't mean that people aren't doing it.
What amazes me is that so many people are so stupid as to actually believe some of this garbage. I think if you are seeing this, you should flag it. Hubs are supposed to be original, but if they are duplicating damaging information from bad sources, they should be deleted by the team.
I agree with you, but I suspect it's a policy issue.
TimeTraveler, you are lucky. I saw a piece of garbage in a Q&A or a forum and posted a correction with my source, an 1859 Federal Register, (Congress of the United States of 1859). Somebody came back telling me that I should use legitimate sources like the Huffington Post, not fake ones. Although I felt insulted, I laughed my head off. I found out much later that there is a fake news website called Federal Register. I had no idea until I accidentally ran across it while searching for the government website.
I absolutely agree with you. The degree of right wing propaganda and religious nonsense posted in the Question and Answer section is going to harm HP at some point.
Obviously Google has the capacity to search for certain phrases, and obviously when one site has an over-abundance of those phrases, it is going to be penalized in some way.
I'm hoping that HP will do away with the Q&A feature for the following reasons.
1. It has nothing to do with writing articles.
2. A good few people who are use the Q&A feature have never written an article on hubpages.
3. The only possible purpose it can serve is increase the traffic on hubpages which plays a part in SEO. This, however, is not a good type of traffic.
4. It may focus more attention on writing articles rather than focusing on Q&A.
You raise a great point about Google. Facebook has announced it is taking steps to get rid of the Russian-controlled advertising accounts that were posting anti-Clinton ads during the election.
News reports say that Google is cracking down on fake news sites. But you make me wonder if Google will penalize legit sites like HP that end up with links to those sites.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … 16-w462939
It's funny, I've heard for years that there are sub-par articles on this site but I haven't seen a lot of them; I think it's because I don't explore articles very much. I'll read some articles from people I follow or on subjects I follow or sometimes I'll do a search on the site and find something or something will pop up somehow, or an interesting member will be on the forums and I'll go check out their articles; but I didn't Hub hop much or anything like that, so I think I missed most of the bad stuff. I will find some overly simplistic articles that don't give much in terms of insight or new information though.
At any rate, it stands to reason that a lot of people putting out false information would use a site like HP that is pretty generous in terms of what is allowed. I'd rather have the freedom of the site continue though. I'd hate to see the clamp be put down and have a lot of writers become collateral damage.
There is the issue of your country becoming collateral damage to the fantasists, lol.
Who are those? The ones that believe everything force fed to them by mainstream media, the same mainstream media that did a black out on Occupy and Bernie, that colluded with the DNC and Hillary, and that now are clearly pushing narratives to cover that damage they caused. The ones that blacked out political movements like Occupy and Bernie's movement but then suddenly find it in their heart to cover this pretentious and manufactured "resistance" to a President they helped to elect? In that case, you're right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yralGh5 … ture=share
Going to just leave this here, seems like a good thread for it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVmhj5z … ture=share
The day the DNC selected Hillary, I wrote on G+ that Trump would win. Didn't doubt it for a minute. Every single poll out there said that Bernie would win against Trump, and while Hillary would win against Trump, it was at a substantially lower figure.
The bottom line was that the DNC was corrupt, the press didn't want to know Bernie, and Trump sold newspapers. I suspect the leak from the DNC wasn't Russia but an internal leak - possibly one of Bernie's people. Wiki has said repeatedly it didn't come from Russia. I don't think Hillary lost because of Comey. I think she lost because most people can't stand her, because she represented the status quo, and the status quo has harmed us all.
Completely agree - the DNC leak was downloaded at a speed too high for a remote server. I don't like Bernie's policies, but he would have won the election.
Exactly. And while the Democrats have opposed single payer until they realized opposing it might ruin their chances in 2020 (and so a few of them joined Bernie on it recently, one of whom - Kamala Harris - opposed it in California), they then turn around and make another hypocritical move and give Trump more money than he asked for in military spending, while all this time they've been claiming Bernie's been unrealistic though it's somehow realistic to pump money into the military. The Democratic Party is infuriating and most people are hip to their lies, that's why they're losing. Trump won because about half of voters didn't even come out to vote because they were so demoralized by Hillary, the corrupt DNC and the mainstream media. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherma … 7ad3cc4802
And the stupid witch can't get over the fact that she lost. Plus the number of Dems who insist she lost because she is a woman is beyond ludicrous. Though, at the time, if it had been Elizabeth Warren, I would have voted for her. I was, however completely disgusted with Warren and Rachel Maddow for supporting Clinton.
What I fear is that fake news can be the new censorship cover to remove things people disagree about.
This page is one of the worst examples of deliberately trying to falsify reality on Hubpages:
https://hubpages.com/politics/Is-The-Or … r-100-Real
It attempts to suggest that the murder of 49 people never happened. For this to be true, several hundred people would have needed to lie.
It is an incredibly nasty piece of work with no regard for the victims or their families, the emergency service workers who responded, or the traumatized survivors.
It also helps to create an atmosphere of paranoia and delusion where anything is possible and the least trustworthy people are those charged with the safety of the American public.
The woman presents no evidence, but simply tries to cast doubt on the testimony of those who were there.
If HP wants to give people like this a platform, I can see reasons that Google might not want to be a facilitator.
There are multiple hubs, and even more forum posts, claiming that 911 was a hoax; that there were no terrorists or even planes involved. And I'm betting there are hubs claiming the holocaust never happened.
Not sure what HP can do about such nonsense, though, without being accused (correctly) of censorship.
If a major news outlet published material of the kind that I mentioned it would face consequences.
It would certainly lose advertisers (http://fortune.com/2017/05/25/hannity-l … cy-theory/)
It would face humiliation http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/us/co … tion.html.
Extreme examples of journalistic wrong doing force newspapers out of business, which is what happened to the News of the World in the UK, once the biggest circulation newspaper in the English speaking world.
There is one helluve difference between censorship (discussing or reporting what really happened) and pretending something is real when it is not.
Here is the real problem
25% of Americans suffer from permanent chronic mental illness (this is not depression) and that includes paranoia. Another 25% of Americans have episodic mental illness. Add to that the poor quality of education and the massive propaganda machine in the States and you have nobody landed on the moon, that 9/11 was an inside job, that the holocaust never happened, etc. And you have problems - big problems.
Saying that stopping delusional people from publishing their version of reality is confusing the right of the people to know with the evil of lying to we-the-people.
Hi Tess! I just commented on one of your articles.
Yes, I noticed. I responded. I think you misunderstood what the article said. I also wasn't sure that you read it as your remarks were completely different to what I wrote about. Nor could you have watched any of the videos or read the links attached. I never write anything without providing links to back it up.
I don't think massive propanda is limited to the United States. I would bet a lot of money that Russia used its propaganda machine during the British vote on Brexit. It is very much in Russia's interest to see Britain leave the Union.
It also was widely reported that Russia did the same thing during the French elections. The U.S. is not alone with the problem.
Oh stop it! If Russia had had a hand in it, the majority for Leaving would have been much larger.
It's very much in Britain's interest to leave the EU as any sensible person knows. I refer you to Juncker's speech of last week when he laid out his 'plans' for future integration.
Are you saying Russia interferes only in U.S. elections and not other elections?Is it in Russia's interest for Britain to leave the EU?
I keep reading that British voters regret the election.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po … 95591.html
You also might want to read this article about possible Russian interference in Brexit:
http://www.businessinsider.com/labour-m … xit-2017-2
Or this one:
And many others.
Um. Sorry. I read international media. It was the Tories who manipulated the media. I was there for the last election and voted. (Commonwealth members can vote, and I have dual nationality.)
Russia attempted to intervene in the French elections and the French laughed at them.
Here is the bottom line. Russia cannot influence anyone unless they are stupid.
Tess, the article links indicate the possibility that the Russians did interfere. I'm offering credible U.K. sources and not a personal opinion.
As the U.S. elections showed, it's a subtle form of influence using fake news and social media.
Sorry, the first link said that a majority of the Brits regretted they voted for Brexit. NOwhere does it say that the Russians intervened.
The second article says that a particular member of parliament is asking whether the Russians intervened. There has been no evidence of it at all, so he is obviously just stirring the pot.
The third link is referring to America.
So, no, you haven't provided me with links from GCHQ that there is even the remotest possibility, and they are the only people who would know.
I explained in the post with the links that the first link referred to a majority of British voters wanting a new vote.
Regarding the second link, he may or may not be stirring the pot. But the second link has more support from the following articles about a committee of MPs.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 … eport-says
http://time.com/4735665/brexit-vote-for … er-attack/
The third link was a mistake on my part. I was reviewing quite a few articles and copied the wrong link.
Either way, I did not say Russia certainly interfered in Brexit. I said it was possible. I struggle to believe that Russia interferes only in U.S. elections and not any others. And Russia certainly benefits from Brexit.
You misjudge the extent of the question.
Should we ban any discussion presenting religion as truth? Or only that concerning Islam, Buddhism, or whatever the censor decides is false? Should we ban hubs on astrology or Tarot reading as obviously false?
Should we prohibit claims like "50% of the population suffers at least episodic mental illness (when half the population exhibits a trait can it be called "illness" or is the half that is "sane" ill)? Moving to the political arena, should claims like "Trump is insane" be censored out of HP?
Deciding that anything that we don't believe, and that others do, is reason for censorship doesn't sound right in a country espousing the idea of free speech. Do we just decide that if we think it is untrue that the speaker is lying and needs shut down?
And what group of people will get together to make that determination?
Clearly, you have no idea what free speech is. Free speech is not free propaganda. And when the idea of free speech came about, they did not have any idea of what would happen when people started influening others en masse with lies and hte kind of weaponry,e tc. we have available today.
Basically, anything that cannot not be said to be factually correct using empirical evidence should not have a public platform.
It is one thing to be able to say anything to one's friends and family (free speech). It is quite another claiming something is factually true on a public platform when there is no evidence for it.
And you obviously have no idea what free speech means in the US, either legally and constitutionally. It does NOT say that only factually correct opinions, using empirical evidence, are allowed to be presented. The concept of free speech is that one may say anything they like, with a few exceptions ("Fire!" in a crowded theater, slander/libel, incitement to riot, etc.).
It has nothing to do with weaponry, it has nothing to do with whether a statement is propaganda or not, and it has nothing to do with whom is being addressed (friend, family, foe or total stranger). An old quote, attributed to Voltaire although he apparently did not originate it, says: "I disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it". That's what free speech is about, at least in the US. Other countries and cultures differ, but we are talking about an American company censoring what is said.
How is tarot reading 'obviously false'? That's like saying reading a newspaper with printed squiggles is false. They are cards with images and symbols that can be deciphered.
When publishing something in general media, it should only be what can be proved by empirical methods. What cannot be proven by empirical methods can certainly be spoken about in private but it should not be presented to the general public as if it were factual information
It is more important to protect the group than to pander to the individual.
*shrug* ask the majority of the population if shuffling a deck of cards can determine anything at all. People have differences of opinion, that's all I'm saying, and those differences are insufficient for censorship.
A knife edge to walk, as I really hate seeing some of what is published here, just as has been pointed out.
Oh, I see, you are thinking that tarot is *only* about fortune-telling. Not so. It's a system, originally a game. Perhaps it wasn't a good example of the point you were making.
Perhaps not - I only know it as fortune telling. Ignorance is bliss, right!?
But in that sense it doesn't matter whether Tarot, crystal balls, voices from the gods, tea leaves, hazelnuts thrown in a fireplace, apple peels dropped on the floor, or egg yolks floating in water (the last 3 being very old methods of divining the future); I personally reject them all as completely without foundation, but that doesn't mean I should have the right to censor them, to require they not be mentioned or practiced. Although that knife edge gets sharper when money is exchanged for something that, IMO, does not exist...
Ignorance is not bliss, it is one of the causes of fake news. In your example, you are lumping tarot together with questionable practices. Whereas, if you would take the trouble to do a little research, you'd discover that tarot is a system that has long been the subject of study by scholars, writers, psychologists, artists, etc.
I agree that there is a lot of tarot nonsense out there, mainly by people who should know better. However, by assuming that it is only a tool of scammers in hooped earrings, you are contributing to the ocean of ignorance.
This is why I do not comment on US politics or on subjects I know nothing about - I do some research first before I venture an opinion. Free speech is a wonderful concept; spouting off without some facts to hand is fakery in action, albeit in ignorance.
Googling "tarot", I find the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 7th entries concern divination. The 5th and 6th seems to have something to with something else entirely. The 4th, Wikipedia says "Tarot cards are used throughout much of Europe to play card games. In English-speaking countries, where these games are not played, tarot cards are used primarily for divinatory purposes."
In other words, parts of southern Europe plays games, everywhere else (including the US) deal with divination and the occult. I have some trouble thinking I should have known that. Or that it matters a great deal in the context used - it was pretty obvious that card games were not being discussed.
I got upset as I tried to read it. I had to stop. I saw your comment. Nice try!
I've decided I'm not going to waste my time when people try to stir the pot. I can discuss with anyone, agree or not, as long as the discussion is an attempt at intelligence.
Hey Wil, the scary part of that article you presented as an example can be found in the comments. While the article was very sketchy at best, some of the commentators were stating how well the article was "researched" or it gave them "food for thoughts." When comments like that you start to wonder how powerful a little confirmation bias can be.
Newspapers "censor" all of the time. They reject comments from sources if they know the sources are trying to mislead them. They reject or edit many letters to the editor for false, libelous or misleading statements.
They also use quotes when they know someone makes a false or outrageous statement and then provide a second source proving the first source is wrong.
There is an important difference between editing and censoring. The point of this thread is whether editing standards on HP should include material that is provably false if the editors are notified about it.
Excellent point. I don't know if fake news could be eliminated on HP any easier than it could on all news feeds. Again, who determines what is a viable source? I've seen terribly bogus things on Huff Post and CNN. Fox news has even disappointed me. Fake news is able to be presented as real because most people don't do research. Most won't check for sources. I've seen people use "The Onion" as a source thinking they had a real story. So, what's to be done? I don't know if there is an answer that would cover everything. Fake news is as old as news itself. How about supermarket tabloids like the "The Globe," National Enquirer," "The Star" and others? They've been around for years.
I haven't seen anything like that. And honestly, fake news in politics is nothing new. It's just that Trump can't handle anything. I remember all of the ridiculous stories I used to read about Obama, that claimed to be fact. It's not as big of a deal as conservatives make it out to be
I haven't seen any, but why would anyone need to post it on hubpages? If they want fake news, there is plenty of it on TV.
I'm not aware of any TV networks controlled by Russian intelligence, unlike the anonymous political blogs. But I suppose it's possible.
I thought the same about major newspapers and magazines. There had always been a journalistic standard. If they were wrong, they would pring a retraction.
Scott, I stay away from Answers and Forums except for advice about HubPages. Much of the stuff there is ill-informed twaddle from people with a political or religious axe to grind. I have no interest in engaging in verbal slugfests with these folk. I've felt for a long time that these channels damage HP's credibility, but perhaps they raise revenue to keep the operation running.
LOL, yep, there is a lot of twaddle. You are wise to keep away.
Sometimes I stay away, but then I get concerned when I see postings and Hubs with propaganda from fake news sites. I agree that they damage HP's credibility.
From my experience running websites, the Forums and Answers probably produce very little advertising revenue. They probably have more value in attracting search engines by providing an ongoing stream of site activity.
News has been fake for a long time since William Randolf Hearst started yellow journalism.
We have witnessed fake news via Hitler, blatant attack on a religion filled with falsehoods, resulting in millions of needless deaths.
As a former PR, I have witnessed fake news many, many times. Those who are in power whether celebrity or VIP are very familiar with fake news.
It is evil.
Biased "information," ignorant or deliberate misinformation, and "information" filled with obfuscations is everywhere, even on Wikipedia. Journalists are notoriously poorly educated and don't know what they're talking about. Many of them have a poor command of the English language. They have no understanding of the subject matter they're covering, and apparently no interest in learning anything about it. Good examples are the journalism related to real estate and finance. The ignorance, pandering to special interests--and sheer subliteracy--in major newspapers and MSM online news outlets is appalling.
I don't think major news outlets have employed "fact checkers" since forever. And I think the proofreaders were all laid off with the advent of computers.
I don't see any reason to single out Hubpages for bashing.
Mainstream media is a joke, no doubt about it. They lie by omission, giving us what they want us to believe and leaving out what they want us to ignore. And, yes, it's a joke to pretend they are somehow more trustworthy. I'm surprised at how easily people are duped sometimes, just following along with the mainstream narratives.
As someone who has worked in journalism for decades, I strongly disagree with your post.
Major newspapers often employ people with master's degrees, law degrees and even PhDs. They use extensive fact-checking and run articles through multiple editors for accuracy.
They run corrections when they find important errors. They also fire people who make big errors. They get sued when they are irresponsible. Are they perfect? Of course not. Show me anything that is perfect in life.
But if you are talking about TV journalism, that's a different story. TV news has very loose standards compared to newspapers.
Regardless, I'm not singling out HubPages. I just happen to care about this site.
The interesting thing about The News of the World being shut down is that it happened not for telling lies, but because they hacked phones and actually got to the truth. So it wasn't so much an issue of fake news, more an issue of privacy. Even then, it took the hacking of a murdered schoolgirl's phone to cause enough outrage to close the despicable rag down. Soon after we learnt that the NOTW was hacking and snooping on every newsworthy celebrity, we learnt via Edward Snowden that our governments were hacking and snooping on just about all of us.
Then the Russians gave Edward Snowden asylum a number of years before they became the prime suspects behind the tsunami of fake news that beset the Brexit campaign and the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Irony or design? Or maybe an ongoing campaign to delegitimise the dominant mainstream political narratives in the U.S.?The undercurrent of all this were the lies that were told to take us into the war in Iraq, which inevitably lead back to 9/11 and how that event was used and abused for domestic and geopolitical purposes.
Had the NOTW just continued to print tittle-tattle based on hearsay and virulently biased political nonsense as per Rupert Murdoch's leanings, they would still be here today, which of course, is very depressing.
I've never yet been directed to a reliable source which 'proves' the Chemtrail conspiracy, although I have been directed towards a 1960's cartoon with a piano with keys, depending on which you press, delivers a certain weather outcome. The Bionic Woman film was also another source which a chemtrail enthusiast used to try and convince me that chemtrails were 'real,' and also a film called 'Our Man Flint.' Another source I was sent 'proving' chemtrails was a film in which all the academics interviewed said it wasn't happening but to the mind of the person who sent it to me this was proof because it was mentioned by an academic and then denied. If they deny it, that is as good as an admission for some
Reality, it seems, is what you can get away with.
I feel one of the major issues of our time could well be where the limits of censoring (maybe not the right word) of bullshit or propaganda ends, and free speech begins.
Is a conspiracy theory "fake news" or just a bit of fun?
https://hubpages.com/religion-philosoph … Conspiracy
Interesting Tess, censorship has traditionally been used by regimes or media organs to limit the knowledge of research or events that are inconvenient or at odds with the prevailing narrative. Or what the powers that be deem as obscene. What we are seeing now with the manufacturing of truth and the participation of large swathes of populations in those untruths via the internet is a problem not foreseen by the those who drafted laws based on the right to free speech.
The problem with the manufacturing of truth has long been a problem in the media, as per the much-debated' intellectual prostitutes' speech of John Swinton in perhaps 1888, the history of which continues to morph over time, depending on which wiki you read.
9/11 may not have been an inside job, however, fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the UAE, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon, and this gave the Bush administration cover (how?) to attack Afghanistan and Iraq (for having WMDs. that didn't exist) and also clamp down on domestic civil liberties and spy on everyone, mostly either supported by, or ignored by mainstream media. Problem - big problem.
A guy called Daniel Hopsicker researched and wrote a book and made a film about the lives of the 9/11 bombers before 9/11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6W4L-HK-Os which shreds the official narrative of some events. He doesn't come to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job but he does come to the conclusion that for some reason the public was lied to in some ways about the event. The only outlet that video is available to watch on youtube is via ufo tv, which is of course, mostly full of nonsense itself. Problem.
25% of Americans may be suffering from permanent chronic mental illnesses according to those who subscribe to the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) version of mental illness as reality, in other cultures, these people may just be perceived as having a different way of dealing with reality and not be classed as mentally ill at all. Problem?
As a Brit who spent some time living in Texas, I would have gauged the number of people with mental illness as far higher than 25%, as I reckon around 70% of the people I engaged with there professed to be devout Christians and as far as I am concerned the dissonance between most of their beliefs and actions was certainly a signifier of mental illness. These Christians may have taken my lack of faith as mental illness themselves.
Reality and truth can be very difficult things to pin down, dismissing all conspiracy theories can be as dangerous as believing them all.
Learning to communicate in e-prime ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime ) can help reduce confusion when we are discussing 'truth and reality.'
Some people can never be helped as 'they want to believe.'
Not sure if you were in the UK at the time that Bush wanted to go into Iraq, but I recall the British people having large banners daying "Not in my name." I also recall parliament voting against it and Tony Blair making a unilateral decising to go in with the States. He lost his premiership as a result and the hatred of him remains tangible to this day.
Nobody in Europe believed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - only Americans.
Yes, I would agree that belief in gods in a mental illness. The cognitive dissonance is intense, but until society here actually accept that they're believing in fairy tales, I'm not sure that they will classify it as mental illness.
I concur about the diagnostic manual. In America, being different can be frightening. I once answered a set of tests that I wouldn't go along with the group when continually asked if I would always cooperate with the group. I was told that I was a rebel, even though I had to do the test twice between the doctor doing the test found that there was a contradiction in the results. None of the other results agreed with the rebel conclusion. It didn't occur to her that the test didn't say 'social group,' it just said group. And it could be a group of terrorists, for all I know!
My opinion of those who deal in diagnosing mental illness isn't very high.
That said, it's fairly easy to spot those who are out of touch with reality.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the work of Edward Bernays, Freud's nephew. He figured out that the human brain believes everything that it hears repeatedly - mulitplication tables, bible, whatever. He told business after the Great Depression that they need never again be without business. All they had to do was use media to give the same message over and over again - regardless whether it is true or not. Thus was consumersm born. Americans face a bombardment of advertising and marketing, the level of which is unknown elsewhere int he world.
Hearing things over and over again on social network sites, TV, radio, church, whatever, inclines one to believe it is true. If one has never been taught how to evaluate factual information (and the American education system doesn't teach people that), it becomes problematic.
Certainly dismissing all conspiracy theories as crackpot can be just as bad as not doing so. It depends whether the conspiracy is factual or not. Magical thinking is the linking of one set of facts with another set of facts when there is no evidence of a causal link. So it's fairly easy to see when a conspiracy theory is nothing more than a load of codswallop.
Hello Diane, for me the most interesting fact about collard greens and cruciferous veg is that studies have shown that by the age of seventy if you consume them regularly you will possibly have the cognitive function of someone eleven years younger who doesn't consume them.
The problem with stupid Alex Jones and his theories is that they infected the mainstream and got Donald Trump elected. The reason that happened is partly due to the lack of accountability our politicians in the West have been held to by the mainstream media, particularly in the U.S. and U.K.
Now Jones and many of his guests are now openly and regularly calling for civil war in the United States. That should disturb everyone given the path Donald Trump is taking with the truth.
I started writing a fictional book on the second civil war in 2011 but never finished it. It was serialized on Smashwords for a while and I got quite a large following. I published it the other day on Hubpages under the title The Second Civil War. What surprises me is how close I got to what would eventually happen.
Iraq amongst other things may have been the reason Tony Blair eventually had to relinquish his premiership, however, in 2005, two years after the invasion of allied troops in Iraq he won a UK general election and it was only two years later he resigned.
There was indeed a million-person march in the UK against the Iraq war, however, polling done by YouGov at the time showed that in the U.K. 54% of the population was in favour of it and 38% against. Interestingly YouGov did a follow-up poll in 2015 to see how people recalled themselves thinking at the time in 2003 and 37% of people recalled themselves being in favour of the war and 43% against it. People must obviously fake news their own brain.
Here are the figures for Europe http://cer-staging.thomas-paterson.co.u … 3-3848.pdf
That is really interesting. I must have read different news sources, plus been influenced by my peer group. We were very, very against the war, and I recall countless news media saying there were no wmd ij Iraq. I will need to check that. Thank you.
Just to clarify, I would not think it could be classed as magical thinking to believe that there is a high correlation between the number of people who believed that there were WMD's in Iraq and those who were in favour of the war.
Judging by the figures, the amount of people in Europe who believed there were WMD's in Iraq and were in favour of the war were certainly substantial (not nobody) but overall it probably shows that the U.S. population were most gullible and prone to the effects of the propaganda closely followed by the U.K. This may well be due to the partisanship of the mainstream media in those countries other than sheer stupidity, although you could make a good argument for the latter.
I am aware of Edward Bernays, I have a copy of Propaganda sitting across the room on a bookshelf. Another interesting tome to read on the subject if you can find a copy is Techniques of Persuasion: From Propaganda to Brainwashing by JAC Brown.
Just to clarify, I said that where there was no causal link between two things, it was magical thinking. An example would be bad luck if a black cat walked across one's path.
There was a causal link between people who believed there were weapons of mass destruction and the belief that the nation's should go to war against them.
For the rest of what you say, I have no evidence and would have to go back and check as that is not my memory of events. I am a German citizen and was resident in the UK at the time.
I don't have time to check it right now. I am also on my phone and need to be on my laptop.
I'm pretty sure that 9 out of 10 people in the UK did not believe there were WMD in Iraq - especially as there was no evidence of them, and the only person wanting a war there was Tony Blair.
Thank you. That was pretty much my impression as well. All the news outlets I read said that the United Nations confirmed there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Plus they wanted to wait two weeks to give the UN time to send in another team to check. Bush was insistent that they go in now. I guess I better start checking sources.
In 2003 according to a YouGov poll, 54% of people were in favour of war with Iraq. Other polls at the time showed similar numbers. The logical extension of this is that people believed Iraq had WMD's. Or perhaps they just wanted a war with Iraq for no reason.
Which seems more plausible?
I have just checked that. First of all, yougov was using gallup polls and it was speaking about America. Secondly, 9/11 was in 2001, and I think America went into Iraq the same year.
I know that because I entered the Green Card Lottery in October 2001 and the hatred from the UK and the EU was at an all time high as a result of Bush enforcing the NATO agreement. So, sorry, no, Virtually all Brits and the EU were anti going into Iraq.
The majority of British voters want a second vote. The majority of British voters don't want a second vote. The majority of British voters couldn't care less. The majority of British voters just want to get on with it.
Pick one - you'll find plenty of 'evidence' to support your choice.
Edit: You picked the Guardian and the BBC - what else would you expect from two left wing sources?
The Russians have not interfered with me.
I voted Brexit. Anti-globalisation and anti-European single state agenda.
The media - especially the BBC - generated a never ending stream of propoganda designed to sway my vote.
The problem with 'fake news' is the message depends on who owns the major outlets. Russian fear is a puerile nonsense. The endless anti-Trump rhetoric is pathetic.
There IS a fake news - and it is a so-called liberal tech youth manipulation of the gullible and stupid. This is in order to support the uber criminals of our time - Zuckerberg, Bezos and many others. They now own democracy.
Meanwhile the young get excited over wearing a pussy hat and worrying about transgender toilets. It is awful stuff.
Ask what the politicians have done for jobs, economy, income, shelter and the answer is nothing. There was a time when people marched for the simpler things. Not any more.
The freedom of the internet is the only voice most people have. This desire to close and control it is what should be concerning people. Not whether someone posted something they don't like.
WMD - blatantly, provably - FALSE. That is after UN sanctions starved and destroyed Iraq and then we - yes WE - bombed what was left of it. A country destroyed.
You want fake news. Ask your government representative to tell you a single truth.
I recommend heating the egg yolks.
Very tasty, many variations to be found on delishably.com
I wouldn't like to be charged with fact-checking this thread, lol.
I'm not sure any of us could be trusted to produce a genuinely reliable article on any political issue.
Will, politics and facts are not synonymous. People can look at the facts and take different political positions. Our current healthcare dilemma is a good example.
1. Affordable Healthcare Act cost is rising for some people/some can't afford it
2. It covers pre-existing conditions
1. Is repeal and replace the answer OR fix what is in place
2. Will replacement plans be better than what we have
1. We must replace it because we told our donors we would
2. We are not going to vote to repeal/replace
Politicians have become increasingly corrupt, ideological, and just plain stupid.
In a perfect world (I wish) political administration would simply mean to organise and implement systems so that the people can live a safe and prosperous life.
Healthcare is vital to everyone.
Taxes are intended, not for war and the luxuries of the politicians, but to pay for services which would otherwise be more expensive if each person had to pay for them individually.
With that in mind, it's not that complicated to figure out which system will provide the best and least expensive healthcare for we-the-people. It's simply a matter of looking at past history, examining the way other countries do it (where medical is both cheaper and better) and applying that.
That's not the real issue, though.
The issue is ideological (which should not be permitted in political administration). In this case, the piece of ideology is that a) government should not use the taxes of the people to pay for the health of its citizens even if the majority of the people who pay taxes would prefer their combined contributions to be used for the benefit of we-the-people b) the government should support business, and business should be allowed to make profit out of the medical needs of the people because if business flourishes, then business will pay higher wages and do everything in its power to provide more jobs (i.e. not move business to other countries to make more profits or buy robots to do the work instead).
The problem with the current political system is that people who want to run for power (and it is power not political administration) have to pay for their own election costs. This means only the rich can run for power. It also means that the rich have a vested interest in passing laws that support their profits at the expense of we-the-people.
"Taxes are intended, not for war and the luxuries of the politicians, but to pay for services which would otherwise be more expensive if each person had to pay for them individually."
Where in the world do you get that quaint notion? Straight from the socialists of the world? Taxes are to run the country, not to hand out to individuals that want more than they can afford. Nor is it hardly ever cheaper to have a government accomplish a task than for people to do it themselves.
"The issue is ideological (which should not be permitted in political administration)."
That's almost comical as it is a completely ideological argument that you are espousing for where government is to spend the taxes it takes in.
There can be no doubt that national treasures are under assault by President Trump. Mostly in order to undo Obama executive orders, why? Because Obama spent 15 minutes at a National Correspondents Dinner mocking him. Think I am being ridiculous? He refused to attend the dinner this year; breaking a many decades long traditions.
Here are the national monuments under consideration for removal from the program, and being returned to drilling and mining companies. Many of these properties have been appraised at zero dollars per acre. Who do you think will benefit from that?
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nat … story.html
I could go on with 30 more stupidly outrageous things this administration is up to, but I will spare you the horrors. Suffice to say, we have some serious concerns here, that cannot be undone once they get rolling.
Coal mining waste free to be let loose in the creeks and rivers. Taking 35 million people off of health insurance (yes, each prospective bill gets worse and worse) Betsy DeVos, who wants Christian Academies for everyone at taxpayer expense and to the detriment of public education... each of these initiatives and many more cannot be undone, the bell cannot be unrung. We cannot regrow giant sequoias, we cannot send children back through elementary and high school there is so much more they have initiated. It is a daily onslaught.
I don't care if you folks slept through brexit, and now have to go it on your own. Good luck! We have a government bent on appeasing only the business owner, whatever that business might be, and at any expense to the environment and the disenfranchised.
"I have just checked that. First of all, yougov was using gallup polls and it was speaking about America. Secondly, 9/11 was in 2001, and I think America went into Iraq the same year.
I know that because I entered the Green Card Lottery in October 2001 and the hatred from the UK and the EU was at an all time high as a result of Bush enforcing the NATO agreement. So, sorry, no, Virtually all Brits and the EU were anti going into Iraq."
Utter nonsense. Let's start with your first assertion that about the opinion polls. This link shows they were YouGov polls, carried out by themselves in the UK, not Gallup in the U.S.
Ok, so that's your first lie, or attempt at fake news nailed. Secondly, you may 'think that the invasion of Iraq happened in 2001 the same year as 9/11, but it didn't, here is the Wikipedia entry for it
Now, do you think Wikipedia is lying to you as well?
Which brings us to the next point, using the Daily Mail as a reference. They've been banned by wikipedia as a reliable news source because they just make things up, here is the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/02/09/ … ource.html
I used Fox News as a source for that link and of course, they are as unreliable as the Daily Mail but reading your posts, I think you may find it more believable coming from there.
Quite interesting that a question about fake news should descend into folks making things up and using unreliable news sources to prove their point.
With regard to Russians interfering in the Brexit vote, that is currently being investigated by the ICO and they are aware of what was done and how it was done.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/1 … ics_probe/
The UK is somewhat more subtle and less hysterical than the U.S. in how it goes about these things.
Why on earth do you call it a lie? On that very page is this:
People tend to believe what they want to believe and remember what they want to remember.
Also, your earlier notion that religion is a symptom of mental illness, suggests a deeply flawed understanding of human life. People are more than thinking machines. They have dimensions and depths in their response to life that take them well beyond mere reason.
Actually, it's not my idea that religion is a sign of mental illness - it's been out there for quite a while. I do think that people who believe in religion are not particularly bright or particularly well informed. That is shown in the fact that there is a direct correlation between intelligence/education and religion. The more highly educated and intelligent people are, the more likely they are to be atheists, and the more stupid and uneducated they are, the more religious they are. You can google that. Quite a bit of research on it.
In addition, something like 99% of the members of the Royal Society (the oldest society and most prestigious society for scientists) are atheists.
As to my knowlege of the human condition and the human mind, I know it quite well. I just don't have a high opinion of it. For the most part, people spend their lives gossiping about others, smoking, drinking, taking recreational drugs, and most of them lie in order to protect their own ego and/or make more money. I understand it absolutely. People believe in gods because they have been indoctrinated to believe that there is a god, because they don't know how to cope with loss (it's painful), because they don't know how to get to where they want to go, because they feel guilty about all sorts of things, etc.
I'm providing older copies of newspapers to back my assertion that the majority of Brits did not support the Iraq war in another thread.
Let's focus on the publications BEFORE the Iraq War. Before I do, here's a tmeline for the events.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 … /iraq.iraq
QUOTE;Fewer than one out of every 10 Britons believe it would be right for the country to take part in a war against Iraq without the UN passing a new resolution in favour of it, the survey suggests.
QUOTE; And 45% of people polled said the UK should play no part in a war on Iraq - whatever the UN decides.
QUOTE; The poll was commissioned as part of the BBC's Iraq: Britain Decides day, featuring programmes and events reflecting views and opinions on the possible war in the Gulf.
QUOTE: Conservative voters are even less inclined to back the prime minister, the ICM poll of 1,000 people suggests - more then half of them say he would do anything US President George W Bush asks.
QUOTE:Three out of every five Britons think the UK and US Governments have failed to prove their case that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, the research indicates.
QUOTE: When the survey asked why Britain and America wanted to attack Iraq, the most popular response was: "To secure oil supplies." Fewer than one out of every four said it was to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. And just one out of every five thought it was to prevent another act of international terrorism "like 11 September". Almost three out of every four Britons believe a war against Saddam would damage relations with Muslims in the UK, according to the poll
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/ … any.france
QUOTE: Germany and France are to coordinate their opposition to war in Iraq, French president Jacques Chirac said today, as the two countries reaffirmed their 40-year "treaty of friendship".
QUOTE: Their joint declaration did not mention Iraq, but at a news conference the French president said that both France and Germany believed any decision on military force should be made by the UN security council, only after UN weapons inspectors have reported on their findings.
QUOTE: The German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, had last night made it clear his country would use its position on the UN security council to oppose a resolution backing force against the Iraqi regime.
QUOTE; China has joined other leading members of the United Nations Security Council to voice strong opposition to an American-led war on Iraq.
QUOTE: France and Germany have already expressed their resistance to military action and demanded that everything be done to avoid a conflict.
QUOTE; And on Thursday Russian President Vladimir Putin told President George W Bush that the UN weapons inspectors' report due on 27 January should be the key to deciding future action.
QUOTE; But while Washington so far has the backing of the UK Government, the other permanent Security Council members are much more guarded. (Note, it says UK government - not UK people.)
http://fpif.org/seven_reasons_to_oppose … n_of_iraq/
QUOTE; The United States still appears determined to move forward with plans to engage in a large-scale military operation against Iraq to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein.
QUOTE: Such an invasion would constitute an important precedent, being the first test of the new doctrine articulated by President George W. Bush of “preemption,” which declares that the United States has the right to invade sovereign countries and overthrow their governments if they are seen as hostile to U.S. interests.
QUOTE: Pope John Paul II has expressed renewed opposition to the possibility of war in Iraq, saying the use of military force had to be the "very last option
I have no idea why stories written during the war and after the war say the polls supported the war, but they did not.
I don't have time to do the research for this. The war, in my opinion, should never have happened, and I did not support it then, and I do not support any war that the USA is now advocating.
Oh, please. A link has been provided from the Daily Mail published in 2002 NOT 2003 in which polls were given that show that the public DID NOT SUPPORT THE IRAQ WAR BEFORE IT STARTED.
I lived there. I was there. I read most newspapers. The public was NOT in support of the Iraq War. By the time it started and evey dick and his dog was getting off on war fever, things may have changed, but please find earlier publications when it was being discussed, not now when people are twisting facts.
Nor do I listen to Fox News.
I am a hardcore prorgressive, atheist, and science nerd.
Here's the Guardian. It said there were 2 million in the march against the Iraq war. I prefer the Guardian, the Intercept, and other sources which use traditional jounalism i.e. they check the stuff they write.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/ … ss-protest
QUOTE: It was also a global protest – there were three million on the streets of Rome and anything between 10 and 30 million in cities around the world – and it completely failed. The British march, and public opinion (a poll that weekend put opposition to a war at 52% with only 29% in favour) was dismissed by most MPs and Blair's government: 29 days later, the invasion of Iraq began. So does the demo have any historical importance?
Sometimes you have to admit that you are wrong, Tess. It is much easier in the long run. It is even better to check the facts before you make bald assertions.
I remember the mood before the war perfectly well. Plenty of people in the UK are always up for a war. Any war. Other people couldn't imagine that US and UK leaders would delude themselves as thoroughly as they did.
I say 'delude' because it is quite rare for leaders of western nations to engage in outright lies. I'm pretty sure that Trump believes the stuff he says is true -- even those things that can be easily proven otherwise.
Support for war in Iraq only began to wane when it became apparent it was ill-conceived. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/iraq
Did you actually read the article? Nowhere does it mention Russian interference. In fact it doesnt mention interference at all. It's about data analysis, collection of personal information and profiling via social media. If you can get 'Russian interference' from that then you must be psychic.
"Secondly, 9/11 was in 2001, and I think America went into Iraq the same year."
This, unfortunately, tells us all we need to know, Tess. You think things you know are correct without researching them. This is the only conceivable reason that I can think of that it took you twenty years to come to the conclusion that the 'law of attraction' is complete nonsense. As I said, the problem is with people who 'want to believe.'
Quite what the views of Pope John Paul II have to do with the opinions of the British public in 2003, I am not sure.
So 45% of people in that poll wanted nothing to do with the Iraq war? That tallies more or less with the 54% of the British public who were in favour of the war in the YouGov poll very precisely.
I see you are using sources that correctly state that the Iraq war started in March 2003, even though you asserted "Secondly, 9/11 was in 2001, and I think America went into Iraq the same year."
The split of for/against the Iraq war was not far off 50/50. If you lived in London at the time of the war, that is, if you were there in 2003 and 2001 as well, you may well have had the impression that almost everyone was against the war. Londoners tend to have a younger average age, are more politically active and generally veer towards the left of the political spectrum.
The estimates of attendance at the Iraq war demo in London range between 3/4 million to 3 million. It was the largest demo ever held in London. One person attended a protest against the demo itself on the day. It is fairly unusual for people to take to the streets in favour of a war in the U.K. Maybe others may have some examples of this.
I suggest you read the entire article, plus put it into context. People before the war did not support the war. And if you can find me a poll before the war that says people supported it, I will reconcider.
People voted for Brexit but now regret it. Believe it or not, the fact that people changed their minds during the war is not evidence that before the war they didn't supported it.
Most people were adamant that the UN go in first to see if there were weapons of mass destruction, and most people did not believe that there were weapons of mass destruction. Please read ALL the articles. I couldn't quote every sentence. Bush insisted on going in without the UN going in to check.
Yes, I was in error about 2001. That's because I entered the Green Card Lottery in October 2001 because anit-American sentiment was so high that I though few people would enter. I proved correct because in April 2002, I received a notificaiton that I had won a green card. My error.
No we don't. There are polls and newspaper articles, as I mentioned previously, that will support any position you care to take, including Remainers who now simply want the Government to get the job done. The Guardian is a Remainer paper.
I'll say it again... you can find any data to support your view. To understand how people actually feel, you need to be living here. In London, it's all about Remain. In less affluent areas, most want to Leave.
The polls wrongly predicted the results of the referendum, if you remember? Polls don't mean anything.
Yes, I understand that. However,universally through all of this, it is young people who want to remain and old people who want to leave.
Yes, I do understand that everybody is getting irritated. Theresa May is a really shitty leader.
That said, I look at all this with a cynical eye. The issue is not the EU. The issue is the loss of British culture which old school Brits resent. And I don't blame them. I was absolutely shocked when I returned to the UK in 2014 and saw the way it had changed (I lived there until 2003.)
I do not believe for one instant that leaving the EU is going to make any difference. In fact, I think things will become much more difficult because the following is going to happen (in my opinion).
1. As robots are set to take over between 50% and 80% of jobs in the next 5 to 15 years, there are going to be fewer and fewer jobs. If UBI isn't instigated, there is going to be a great Dystopian society.
2.British culture has already changed. In it's acceptance of a civilized norm, i.e. tolerance, it forgot that tolerance is a peace agreement - not a moral or an ethic. It is an agreement by two parties to live in peace. If any one party breaks that agreement, then tolerance is no longer required. However, because people think that tolerance is a moral/ethic, they don't want to intervene when people have decidedly un-British behaviour, e.g. murdering one's daughter because she didn't marry the man her parents chose. There is nothing that is going to bring back the old way of life. It's gone for good.
3.It's going to become a lot more expensive to live. That's because the UK is no longer an Empire and is a small little island without as much clout as she once had. She's living on borrowed time. The financial district will gradually move to other countries, and many companies will transfer their headoffices to other countries for the simple reason that they will not want to be penalized by the EU for being in the UK. Things with the EU will become more expensive. I don't know in which universe Theresa May lives if she thinks that the EU is going to leave the UK with privileges and let her get away with not paying her due. They have already said that. The bottom line is that Europe does not need the UK.
4. Certainly, the UK may open up trade with other nations. She then opens herself to the fact that quality is not what it is in a civilized country. The EU protected citizens. In my experience, when business rules, citizens get screwed.
5. Traveling is going to become a nightmare. Brits have been traveling with ease for years. They've forgotten what a schlep borders are. They're going to start remembering.
So, while I don't really have any firm decision on whether the UK stays or goes, it is interesting to me. I've had my National Insurance Number since 1975 and have been coming and going since. I don't know what is going to happen to my ability to come and go once the country is out, but I'll wait and see.
Please can you tell me what newspapers you read. Telegraph? Mirror? Evening Standard? Sun? Daily Mail?
Why? I have an integrated newsfeed from UK papers and media.
Edit: What about the vast majority aged over 25 and under 65?
I'm not sure what you mean?
What about them?
What happens to the country in general happens to everybody? Are you suggesting that what I said is only to going to happen to one demographic and not the other.
I think I missed something here.
I want to know where you are getting your information from that says that most people want to leave now. That's why I asked you for your news sources.
This survey was done a few days ago. It says most now want to remain. Not the Guardian.
QUOTE: The new poll of more than 1,400 UK adults showed 52 per cent of the public back remaining in the EU, while 48 per cent would support leaving.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho … 29156.html
I read the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, and the Guardian every day. I read the others occasionally.
This is also interesting. It's what I thought. The members of the European Union don't particularly care if the UK goes.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho … 29156.html
38% want the UK to go and 32% want it to stay.
You said that 'universally...it is young people who want to remain and old people who want to leave.' What about the rest of us? What do we want?
1,400 adults? Give me strength. The polls have been proved wrong over and over. Why would anyone trust the results of such a small sample?
By the way that second link....
'The poll also looked at opinions in the UK, and found that 47 per cent of people are committed to Brexit, while 43 per cent of people wanted to stay put, and 10 per cent were undecided.'
Those polls, eh? Can't be relied on at all.
It was just an observation that young people preferred to stay. I am still unsure of what you are asking when you say "What about the rest of us?" Obviously if it was predominantly young people who wanted to remain, it must be older people who want to leave. So what about both groups?
Still don't understand what you are getting at.
I never use anecdotal (personal experience or observation) as evidence because everybody evaluates things differently. So if polls don't give an indication, then there is no other way of getting an approximate idea of who thinks what.
"And if you can find me a poll before the war that says people supported it, I will reconcider."
I've already done that twice and Will gave you a nice big graphic of it. When you take the 45% in your stated poll that were against the war, what % (out of 100) do you have left?
"Believe it or not, the fact that people changed their minds during the war is not evidence that before the war they didn't supported it."
I'll just leave it at that.
Somewhere else it says 29% were for. You know as well as I do that there are other options that people take apart from a straight yes or no. If I have to tell you that you don't know much about polls. And,no, you did not give me a single poll that was prior to the war beginning. I looked at the dates of everything you gave me.
As I pointed out, just as the vote was carried for Brexit but afterwards people changed their mind, so polls taken after the war changed.Before the war, for many, many months, people were against the war, and that included Europe.
You are not going to win on this, Conversation terminated, unless you can produce a poll that was taken BEFORE THE WAR. And you have NOT done that.
You're assuming an either/or position. How many felt they weren't informed enough to have an opinion? What about the huge number who couldn't have cared less? You can't just subtract the people against an issue and proclaim that the rest support your position. That's just daft.
In the F-News cycle...
Pork Pie Shortage Shock! Polish Plumbers are Eating all of Our Pork Pies!
It was revealed today that Polish plumbers are so ravenous that no pork pie in London is safe. A spokesman for a major supermarket chain, said 'Polish plumbers are like locusts, they eat everything we put on the shelves.'
'I haven't seen a pork pie for weeks,' said Mavis Higginbotham, who has lived in London all of her life.
Daffodils Go Unharvested as Lazy Bulgarians stay at Home
Lazy Bulgarians would rather milk cows than harvest daffodils it was revealed in a shock survey this week. Over half said that they would prefer to stay home, even if they had to milk surly Bulgarian cows, rather than crisscross Welsh mountains in search of the elusive flower.
Mihail Paraskeva, former gang-master of the Pontypridd Open Truck Collection Service, said 'Daffodils are cold and slimy. Udders are soft and warm.'
'Our beautiful flowers are dying because of the lazy Bulgars,' said Mavis Higginbotham, who has lived in Pontypridd all of her life.
More from F-news : spuriouslink.com
HP can require a minimum number of hubs before a person can participate in the Q&A portion of the site and they can limit the number of questions a hubber asks per week. But like other money-making organizations, they won't do anything.
Hubbers, however, could refuse to participate in Q&A by writers who don't write articles and only post questions.
Kathleen, I haven't written a hub in a couple of years. For some reason, I can't get motivated. When I first started, people were talking about all of the money they made. I never made enough for them to payout. They have constraints on what we can write. I am totally unmotivated.
I have to note here that I recently had a question rejected about serious health issues only to notice a 7 year old question by another hubber regarding "if (he) should buy a vibrator for (his) girlfriend".
His question was put in the form of a "discussion" not a Q&A.
However the triviality and silly borderline connotations of his question contrasted vividly to the seriousness of my deleted health question regarding the causes of flesh eating diseases and how to possibly stop such diseases.
My question lasted one day while the vibrator is still on after 7 years.
Maybe I'm using the wrong batteries?
I have 15 hubs.
When lot of information is flowing in the web, sometimes some fake things also can get mixed in it. How to isolate it through computer automation is a thing which only researchers might answer and every one will agree that it is practically not possible to detect such things manually and delete them. So what is the way out? Any solutions?
by Timothy Arends 13 months ago
It’s always worrying when an Internet property you participate in is bought out by another entity, and the acquisition of hubpages is no exception. In the past, I have seen the philosophy and concept of a community I participated in completely changed when it was bought out. The...
by Tim Mitchell 20 months ago
Isn't Fake News as old as propaganda? Is it just a name change? Is there a difference?
by Mamerto Adan 9 months ago
With all those fake news infesting my wall, I think I will create several hubs to debunk those trash. I will coordinate this with some debunking pages.
by Angela Michelle Schultz 6 years ago
I feel concerned that the reason google may prefer ehow as opposed to hubpages, is because there is an abundance of poetry and short stories. I am not by any means saying that those who publish the short stories and poetry are not good, but they are not usually searchable or high market. I...
by Dean Traylor 2 years ago
Now that Google and Facebook are going after fake news sites and stories, how will this affect us?There's no doubt fake news have been a problem for a while. And, now, social media and Google are seeking ways to tweak their systems exclude these sites. However, in the process will Hubpage become an...
by ptosis 2 years ago
Can you tell the difference between real & fake news?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|