VOGONS

Common searches


Meanwhile on CNN

Topic actions

First post, by nforce4max

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-25/cnn- … ranssexual-porn

Yuck 😲

On a far away planet reading your posts in the year 10,191.

Reply 1 of 28, by Munx

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Looks like someone at the technical staff streamed their "evening entertainment" video instead of the news by mistake... 🤣

My builds!
The FireStarter 2.0 - The wooden K5
The Underdog - The budget K6
The Voodoo powerhouse - The power-hungry K7
The troll PC - The Socket 423 Pentium 4

Reply 3 of 28, by VileR

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

"viewers were tuning in for a brand new episode of Anthony Bourdain’s Parts Unknown"

...you just can't make this shit up. 🤣

[ WEB ] - [ BLOG ] - [ TUBE ] - [ CODE ]

Reply 4 of 28, by Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

So how long until Time accidentally put goatse on the cover?

Never thought this thread would be that long, but now, for something different.....
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman.

Reply 5 of 28, by notsofossil

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Hahahahaha...

That was no accident, given all the racy sex related programs CNN has been airing lately.

Thinkpad T42 Win9x Drivers | Latitude D600 Win9x Drivers
Next: Dell Inspiron 8000

Reply 8 of 28, by Dominus

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Moderator
Rank
DOSBox Moderator

Hooray for people trusting fake news!

Windows 3.1x guide for DOSBox
60 seconds guide to DOSBox
DOSBox SVN snapshot for macOS (10.4-11.x ppc/intel 32/64bit) notarized for gatekeeper

Reply 10 of 28, by VileR

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Yeah wouldn't be surprised if it's one of these guys again, bolstering the "fake news" buzzword so that Google/Facebook/etc. get even more justified in filtering information for our innocent minds. Gotta hand it to them, that's almost clever 😉

[ WEB ] - [ BLOG ] - [ TUBE ] - [ CODE ]

Reply 11 of 28, by Jade Falcon

User metadata
Rank BANNED
Rank
BANNED

This is like the time when TWC played pron on the wrong on demand Chanel.

Last edited by Jade Falcon on 2016-11-27, 04:17. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 12 of 28, by gdjacobs

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
VileRancour wrote:

Yeah wouldn't be surprised if it's one of these guys again, bolstering the "fake news" buzzword so that Google/Facebook/etc. get even more justified in filtering information for our innocent minds. Gotta hand it to them, that's almost clever 😉

The ad networks are exercising their right to enforce certain standards of behavior on the part of their clientele. The policy requirements for Ad-words for instance specifies that content may not be deliberately misleading. This is not new.

All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder

Reply 13 of 28, by VileR

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Yes, that much is known, and isn't new. What *is* new (relatively speaking) is just how much information is basically at the mercy of these ad networks, the ease with which they can be manipulated, and the amazing mobility of the goalposts that define the aforementioned standards of behavior.

[ WEB ] - [ BLOG ] - [ TUBE ] - [ CODE ]

Reply 14 of 28, by gdjacobs

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I don't think those goalposts have really moved as much as you think. One of the differences between a tabloid and a news publication is and has always been in their response to failure. News publications retract stories where mistakes have been made and fire staff who deliberately cook the evidence. Tabloids do none of those things.

Google and Facebook do wield a great deal of power, and I think there's an important conversation which should happen about that, but I can't fault a policy which will serve to protect the integrity of data reaching the public. One could just as well argue against their blocking of malware sites.

All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder

Reply 15 of 28, by vladstamate

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
gdjacobs wrote:

I don't think those goalposts have really moved as much as you think. One of the differences between a tabloid and a news publication is and has always been in their response to failure. News publications retract stories where mistakes have been made and fire staff who deliberately cook the evidence. Tabloids do none of those things.

Google and Facebook do wield a great deal of power, and I think there's an important conversation which should happen about that, but I can't fault a policy which will serve to protect the integrity of data reaching the public. One could just as well argue against their blocking of malware sites.

This is very well said, clear and eloquent. I could not agree more.

YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7HbC_nq8t1S9l7qGYL0mTA
Collection: http://www.digiloguemuseum.com/index.html
Emulator: https://sites.google.com/site/capex86/
Raytracer: https://sites.google.com/site/opaqueraytracer/

Reply 16 of 28, by shamino

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

It seems that Western web portal sites are going down the same road as Chinese portal sites. We used to criticize them for filtering.
The openness of information flow on the internet is a good thing. As always, people just have to think critically about what they read. I don't want to be protected from this. Not everything on the internet is true, but not everything in the newspaper or on the TV is true either. People probably felt a greater sense of order when there were only a few news sources which were highly intermingled and basically all said the same things and were written from the same perspective, but that doesn't mean it was healthy. There's just more competition now, and with it more opportunity to see contradictions.
Some bad actors blatantly make stuff up, but it's a big step backward to have the gatekeepers of the internet make this determination for everyone. Democracy requires unfiltered access to information, and in turn requires that the individual do their own filtering and research and make their own judgment of a source's credibility. Not all will agree on what they believe, and that's as it should be - let them argue it out. In the course of arguing they are exposed to competing ideas and everyone's perspective evolves.

Reply 17 of 28, by gdjacobs

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Well, I don't think Google is going to stop indexing fake news sites, "alternative" news sites, tabloids, or conspiracy websites (and I think it would be wrong if they did). They're just not letting them advertise themselves as genuine news organizations via their ad network if they don't demonstrate some responsibility to factual information.

All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder

Reply 18 of 28, by Jorpho

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
shamino wrote:

Democracy requires unfiltered access to information

It's worked as well as can be expected up until now, it seems.

and in turn requires that the individual do their own filtering and research and make their own judgment of a source's credibility.

It is easy to decide that an old man yelling from his porch is probably less credible than a national newspaper, whose continued existence relies on being able to produce quality content that people will buy (and that advertisers will advertise in). The problem is that on the Internet, the old man yelling from his porch can feasibly design a website that looks just as credible.

Reply 19 of 28, by Errius

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Someone mentioned tabloids, and that's a good parallel. Think of the sensationalist 'news' websites the way you would the tabloids or celebrity gossip papers in the old days. What they say may be true but you need to take it with a heavy dose of skepticism.

And I wouldn't dismiss the tabloids as completely worthless. Because they're willing to run stories without verifying them, they're often the first to break important stories. Just remember to be skeptical about their claims.

“I like to dissect PCs. Don't you know I'm utterly insane?"