Fake news[a] is false or misleading information presented as news.[3][4][5] It often has the aim of damaging the reputation of a person or entity, or making money through advertising revenue.[6][7][8] However, the term does not have a fixed definition, and has been applied more broadly to include any type of false information, including unintentional and unconscious mechanisms, and also by high-profile individuals to apply to any news unfavourable to his/her personal perspectives.
Anyone who has perused a few items on this website, can well see that, by our point of view, all that Wikieditors write about Covid-19 is either fake news or emotional invective. They were blinded by faith and party loyalty.
The false information does not necessarily mean that each editor intended to deceive her readers. Rather, they may have written honestly, since they were deprived of their ability to discriminate truth from falsity by feelings of duty to the party and the movement. Their wild joy, at being saved by the vaccine, may have also have rendered them unconscious of reality.
Once common in print, the prevalence of fake news has increased with the rise of social media, especially the Facebook News Feed.[6][9][10] Political polarization, post-truth politics, confirmation bias,[11] and social media algorithms have been implicated in the spread of fake news.[3][6][12][13] It is sometimes generated and propagated by hostile foreign actors, particularly during elections.[14][15] The use of anonymously-hosted fake news websites has made it difficult to prosecute sources of fake news for libel.[3][16]
The newspapers of record, The New York Times and The Washington Post, claim a certain high status. So they did great things fifty years ago, and hope to hide their fraudulent presentation of covid, offering great memories, asking, "Would we lie to you?"
Wikipedia performs the same function with more authority, since no structure of power seems to control it. Yet, it is without controls, Wikipedia manages to produce the same screed as the Times or The Guardian or Le Monde or Corriere della Sera or the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung or El Paìs. Everybody agrees. The road is clear, and we march on, towards the glorious sun of vaccinal profits and glory . Dissent is unthinkable.
In some definitions, fake news includes satirical articles misinterpreted as genuine, and articles that employ sensationalist or clickbait headlines that are not supported in the text.[6]
Clickbait headline from Wikipedia? Never, but it's not uncommon for the notes to bring us to "authoritative" sources that say nothing about the item we were trying to learn about.
Fake news can reduce the impact of real news by competing with it; a Buzzfeed analysis found that the top fake news stories about the 2016 U.S. presidential election received more engagement on Facebook than top stories from major media outlets.[17] It also has the potential to undermine trust in serious media coverage.[18] The term has at times been used to cast doubt upon legitimate news,[19][20]
Yes, just as a news bulletin glued to the wall by the Resistance under Vichy, undermined the trust in official publications.
Unfair comparison, between sanitary fascism and Vichy? No, sanitary fascism preys upon the masses of TV watchers and regiments them to hate and fear dissent, towards civil war.
Multiple strategies for fighting fake news are currently being actively researched, and need to be tailored to individual types of fake news. Effective self-regulation and legally-enforced regulation of social media and web search engines are needed.
Indeed, Wikipedia fears us, and praises censorship, by Google and Twitter. Wikipedia pleads for state censorship, to keep us free from unpleasant news.
The information space needs to be flooded with accurate news to displace fake news. Individuals need to actively confront false narratives when spotted, as well as take care when sharing information via social media. However, reason, the scientific method and critical thinking skills alone are insufficient to counter the broad scope of bad ideas.
They already are doing it, and flood the web with echoing falsifications, to hide the bad news behind a heavy snow of good regime news. A true claim from the most authoritative whistle blower is covered up by hundred denials by debunker sites.
But what if citations from medical journals and unfettered reason are enough to beat back this assault on our liberty and our health? What if our bad ideas can beat back their fake news, what if our bad penny vitamins can beat back their $1000 remdesivir, what if our bad horse medicines that so many of us have used, can chase off the alien accursed vaccine from hell?
Overlooked is the power of confirmation bias, motivated reasoning and other cognitive biases that can seriously distort the many facets of immune mental health. Inoculation theory shows promise in designing techniques to make individuals resistant to the lure of fake news, in the same way that a vaccine protects against infectious diseases.
Hey guys, the writer of this piece is one of us! He could not have called for brainwashing, for immune mental health techniques to control our doubt, unless he was on our side. Unless, unless... what if he didn't notice his words could be interpreted in two ways? Not Impossible. Stranger things have happened. Remember they discussed gain of function research, and in the end Dr. Fauci decided to do it.