3 ms·
>This article is a report of findings by US physics professor Mike van Biezen. That's a very liberal reading of that article. Like most yellow journalism and c
by justinlaster 10y ago
>This article is a report of findings by US physics professor Mike van Biezen.
That's a very liberal reading of that article. Like most yellow journalism and conspiracy theories, there's always of tinge of truth or credibility. The rest of it dives down into completely contrived fear mongering and conspiracy theories, as well as willfully ignoring the mountain of contradicting evidence to the point the article is trying to make. The professor's finding are a very small, small part of the overall article, and certainly a very small part of their overall narrative.
- rudolf0 10y agoIt cites real data from a real scientist. I disagree with the conclusion and the premise just like you do, but it's absolutely not "fake news". >The professor's finding are a very small, small part of the overall article, and certainly a very small part of their overall narrative. You could say this for a ton of MSNBC and Fox News articles. Should they also be banned as fake news? People in this thread generally aren't saying Breitbart should be considered a reputable source for anything; in fact I'd bet most of the Breitbart defenders in here are leftists or at least not far-right like Breitbart. I'm saying there shouldn't be calls for it to be censored in any way. Censorship is extremely dangerous; far, far more dangerous than Breitbart publishing their silly headlines.
- justinlaster 10y agoLiterally no one is calling for censorship.
- rudolf0 10y ago>Why should we turn a blind eye to a source that continually posts provably fake and completely contrived news stories? I interpreted your statement here to mean you should group it along with other fake news distributors and which Facebook and Twitter are now beginning to block. If you didn't mean that, then I apologize.