8 ms·

This was the most interesting part for me... -------- He says he got into fake news around 2013 to highlight the extremism of the white nationalist alt-right.

This was the most interesting part for me... -------- He says he got into fake news around 2013 to highlight the extremism of the white nationalist alt-right. "The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could kind of infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction," Coler says. -------- So in this case, the fake news was created by the left to discredit the alt-right, rather than by the alt-right to promote their views. Oh man. I don't think this tactic can lead to anything good. I hope we don't get to the point where it's really just all out information warfare... and it seems like we're already halfway there.

caf 10y ago
I suppose there's the potential for making people cast a more critical eye over outlandish articles that appear to support their own position, if there's a possibility that it might have been created by "the enemy" to discredit them.
- epicureanideal 10y ago
  But it also creates an environment where you can't ever actually know what any group thinks. "Are there REALLY neo-nazis giving nazi salutes celebrating Trump's victory on video, or is this a staged event to make Trump look like he has neo-nazi supporters?" "Are there even that many well dressed, non-tattoo'd neo-nazis?" (Maybe there are... I don't know any personally, but I wasn't expecting to see people in button down shirts and khakis and clean looking... apologies to any neo-nazis that may be reading this for having a pre-formed impression of what you might be like.) And what happens when a group comes along that REALLY DOES have absolutely crazy views? "Oh well, that was discredited, but that group doesn't ACTUALLY believe the (minority group here) are the cause of all our problems. That's just some fake news designed to discredit them. I like some of the less crazy articles by these guys. I think I'll still vote for the (actually batshit crazy neo-nazi party by another name of 2032)."
  - trprog 10y ago
    Although the medium is new the idea of publishing stuff that misrepresents other people's position is nothing new. Here is a relatively modern example from the very early 20th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of... And although the term has a very tinfoil hat connotation "false flag operations" have also been a thing for millennia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag Even young children understand the logic of "I will do a thing and try to make it look like someone else did it." >But it also creates an environment where you can't ever actually know what any group thinks. You never could really. At best you could get a vague approximation that was hopefully not inaccurate in any way that would bite you in the ass.
    - dvtv75 10y ago
      I seem to recall news video of Muslims firing guns into the air and celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center actually being video of Muslims celebrating a sporting match victory, about 15 years ago.
  - Twisell 10y ago
    Your second idea is actually aleready used by the French far righ supporters. They manage to say horrible things and get away by saying it's just humor and that people who infuriate just don't get it. And as French people have a very high proudness of their free speech policy, it's then very hard to oppose without being called a vile censorship supporter...
    - gilleain 10y ago
      And the more general tactic was used very well by Trump during the campaign. For example when he claimed to be being "sarcastic" when he said Clinton and Obama "founded" ISIS. I found most fascinating - in a horrible way - the exchange he had with a conservative radio host (http://www.hughhewitt.com/donald-trump-makes-return-visit/ http://www.hughhewitt.com/donald-trump-makes-return-visit/): HH: I’ve got two more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace. DT: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton. HH: But he’s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He’s trying to kill them. DT: I don’t care. He was the founder. ... [later] DT: If he would have done things properly, you wouldn’t have had ISIS. The problem here is that he's saying a) Obama IS the founder of ISIS, and b) Obama created the conditions for their rise. One of these is reasonable (in the sense that it can be discussed) and one is clearly nonsense. Which means that he can claim to his supporters one thing - the crazy one - and then defend himself against critics by pointing to the saner version and cry 'sarcasm!'. It's like the phrase "talking out of both sides of your mouth" but at the same time.
- usrusr 10y ago
  Doubt in those stories should better be based on the part where it is just another get-rich-quickly scheme. Otherwise you end up stacking conspiracy on top of conspiracy, which at the end of the day leaves you even more vulnerable to fake news.
wyager 10y ago
> I hope we don't get to the point where it's really just all out information warfare I honestly thing we're headed for full-blown Strossian memetic warfare. The amount of high-level shilling this election cycle (both professional and amateur) was unreal.
visarga 10y ago
The tactic was to make money off the gullibility of people during elections and it worked. He's one of the most successful. You can't believe a professional liar who says he did it for the party, when you can also find in the same article that he makes 1000$ per day from it.
AndrewKemendo 10y ago
I hope we don't get to the point where it's really just all out information warfare Make no mistake, it's always been all out information warfare. The difference now is that the new messengers are not high ranking government or business people and the medium is faster and easier to penetrate. In the past you had to have background, credential and access to get your word into one of the few mediums available, Radio, TV or Print. Now all you need is to make something look good enough and find the right audience.
- _nedR 10y ago
  >Make no mistake, it's always been all out information warfare. If you look at evolution, it is just a fight over whose genes get passed over to the next generation. Genes are just biological encoding of information. Viruses are almost entirely strands of DNA, that is until they find a host cell to infect their information with. In a way it is all just information warfare.
  - kingkawn 10y ago
    The focus of genes as the fundamental location of the information of life has been a multi-decade assumption that has not born the fruit it was assumed that the "code" of life would produce. Seeing life through the lens of genetics is as meaningful as judging it against any other arbitrary metric, and leaves out so much that it permits little insight beyond further refinement of the model. Much like the mistakes made recently by the established political class in over emphasizing the predictive power of their metrics even as the world itself spins further and further away from them.
noobermin 10y ago
>the fake news was created by the left to discredit the alt-right I would say that this individual who was a liberal tried to do this. This isn't like a group of leftists conspiring to do (anti-)propaganda. It is pretty stupid, and his continuation of it is extremely confusing. Sorry, but a side rant to the more "entrepreneurial" startup-cats who browse here. Would you consider this fellow and others like him an entrepreneur? I ask because there is talk in the article that he is one. Even if you take him at his word that he is trying to highlight the problem of disinformation rather than profit off of it, it seems quite suspect to me. A good analogy here is a cook serving spoiled food to highlight healthy and safe cooking habits, regardless of who it hurts. It makes no sense.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  The term "entrepreneur" is value-neutral. It refers to someone who successfully forms a business venture by noticing and taking advantage of an opportunity or need.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    > The term "entrepreneur" is value-neutral. Even on Hacker News?
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    Isn't "successful" a value-term? Aren't there "entrepreneurs" who repeatedly fail? My interpretation of entrepreneur is someome who fails with other people's money. The one you described is just a business person.
- ehnto 10y ago
  The continuation of it could be explained purely by the financial insentives from advertising on the sites. It doesn't sound like he would have any morale qualms with the whole situation. Sounds pretty entrepreneurial to me.
  - messel 10y ago
golfer 10y ago
I don't believe his narrative for a second. He's in this for the money, period. He peddles lies for a living, and also is lying about "publicly denouncing" anything.
- woogiewonka 10y ago
  This exactly. He's in it purely for money. So Cal is full of shady characters like him...
- jonathankoren 10y ago
  He even said he tried to do with fake news targeting liberals, but it didn't work. If this was ideological, he never would try for an own goal. Vox even did an article on conspiracies and why they flourish on the right more than the left.[0] Essentially it's low trust, highly engaged people versus lesser engaged people. If you don't trust anything, and you're consuming "knowledge", you're going to latch on to conspiracies.[1] [0] http://www.vox.com/2015/12/10/9886222/conspiracy-theories-right-wing http://www.vox.com/2015/12/10/9886222/conspiracy-theories-ri... [1] Or at least, that's what they want you to think.[2] [2] FNORD
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    Let's assume for a moment that "conspiracies flourish on the right" is true. If so, I'd have to say that must only be true in parts of America. I have met lots of people with both right and left wing views outside of the USA (some of whom were also Americans), and didn't see any obvious correlation between political viewpoint and conspiracy theories. If anything I'd say there was a slight left wing slant if we include very generic conspiracy theories like "the banks and big corporations are trying to undermine us all". If it is true then I would guess the reason is the relative lack of conservative media in America vs say the UK. In the UK if you want to get viewpoints from the extreme left and right just pick up the Guardian and the Express and read both. In the USA it seems harder. Are there any mainstream conservative-leaning newspapers? Whenever I see the term "conservative media" used in America it always means Fox News which is only a TV channel. Breitbart seems to be tapping into that market segment but again, it's not a newspaper. If you have right wing views and have figured out that there aren't any media outlets that subscribe to your worldview, I can see that this would very easily look like a generic conspiracy and that in turn would breed receptivity to fake right-wing news simply because there are so few places with good reputation where such news is likely to be covered.
rhizome 10y ago
I hope we don't get to the point where it's really just all out information warfare... and it seems like we're already halfway there. Those in power have been there for all of our lives. J. Edgar Hoover only died in 1972 and his practice of information warfare was well in place by then. The "halfway" you speak of is in the citizen's awareness that anybody can be ratfucked[1] and that they're going to need to be able to protect themselves. Maybe there should be a 2nd Amendment for data, packets, or internet connections in general. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking
JKCalhoun 10y ago
> So in this case, the fake news was created by the left to discredit the alt-right, rather than by the alt-right to promote their views. And so after the gullible rubes swallowed his bit of fake news hook line and sinker, he ran to tell the world.
- ec109685 10y ago
  More like after he got caught, he felt the need to spin.
- angry-hacker 10y ago
  I'm not into making fake news but I might have found another bait: "YOU WON'T BELIEVE THIS! Progressives (lefties, or what you Americans call them) are behind fake news industry to spread lies and discredit conservatives!" All in all, it's an interesting bait and valuable lesson. Who knew you could make so much money like that? I guess now the train is gone and it might hit very hard a lot of blogs/new newspapers who try to get into the industry for being fake. Your AdSense account's value is getting higher, folks!
aikah 10y ago
> publish blatantly or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction Denounce those stories by making $30k a month as a spammer ? that's how this guy "denounces the alt-right" ? and NPR buys that argument just like that ?
- Gargoyle 10y ago
  In all these interviews with fake news makers, I've been amused that people who are obvious experts at telling people what they want to hear are still telling people what they want to hear. And it sails right by the real journalists un-noted.
- ec109685 10y ago
  I don't think the NPR passed judgement as to whether it should be bought or not. They are letting us decide. My value judgement is that this is a terrible way to make money and it is unfortunate blatant lies are not somehow slander, despite it being about a prominent individual. The rolling stone was held liable for their false article about sexual assault. I wish this guy could be as well. He duped millions of people.
  - aikah 10y ago
    > I don't think the NPR passed judgement as to whether it should be bought or not. They are letting us decide. How about they actually investigate and find out whether he is telling the truth or lying ? This isn't passing judgement , this is actual reporting. So he was lying back then but now he is telling the truth and "journalists" should not pass judgement ?
    - omginternets 10y ago
      They did investigate: they're telling us that this guy makes significant money from his activities. Draw your own conclusions. They don't have to engage in finger-wagging in order to be reporters.
discardorama 10y ago
> the fake news was created by the left to discredit the alt-right I would have a hard time taking a guy who's the "godfather of fake news" at his word. Who's to say he isn't making this all up?
reitoei 10y ago
> I hope we don't get to the point where it's really just all out information warfare... and it seems like we're already halfway there. We live in a world where the Daily Mail is the most-visited English language news web site and people are using fucking toasters to launch DDOS attacks. The internet has gone to hell. We've already lost.
- titzer 10y ago
  It's not all bad. We're here, aren't we?
  - reitoei 10y ago
    Going totally OT here for a sec, but you guys are awesome. Seriously. This is one of the only places I feel I can come where people are, for the most part, respectful and polite to each other. Nobody is pushing a personal agenda with religion, politics or ethics. Nobody is trying to convince you the world is flat or that aliens built the pyramids. Nobody cares if you're male/female/trans/whatever. Just a bunch of folks talking about their passion without the overhead (for want of a better word) of the everyday web. Places like HN are rare these days. If there is anything similar, please let me know.
    - TorKlingberg 10y ago
      Maybe a couple of years ago. Today, I wouldn’t trust the average HN commenter to evaluate even the silliest conspiracy theory. Even back then, it only worked because we aggressively downvoted the nutters and ignored their complaints.
    - forgetsusername 10y ago
      HackerNews happens to share your values and opinions on things like religion and politics. Donald Trump just won the election; did you read the opinions of people here on this happening? And while we may not be pushing a Flat World, there are plenty of conspiracy theories and ignorance on topics (eg. banks), and a fanaticism with regards to a other things (eg. Tesla) . Opposing views on these sorts of topics are smashed with down votes. My point is, of course it feels comfortable amongst like minded people. But don't extrapolate that to mean this is somehow a special place that's uniquely accepting of all opinions. If you don't believe me, do what the guy in the article did, and play devil's advocate in a few comment threads here.
Malarkey73 10y ago
I think he is being disingenuous. Maybe he started it as an experiment but it's obviously been all about the Benjamins for a long time (20-25 writers? $10000-30000 a month?).
DanielBMarkham 10y ago
False flag operations. Purposeful provocateurs. Seeing a lot of that lately. The thing to remember -- and this comes before the time there was a net -- is that the vast majority of people are nice, socially intelligent, and well-meaning. What the net is doing is convincing us that those in the out-group are simple-minded fools being led around by evil demagogues. That is not the case. But the net is not doing that because of bad people on the net. The net is doing that because humans are predisposed to consume lots of content that tells them this. The fault is internal to each of us. The net is just automating the ability of content providers to take advantage of it.
_pmf_ 10y ago
> So in this case, the fake news was created by the left to discredit the alt-right, rather than by the alt-right to promote their views. See also: the complete HRC campaign.

caf 10y ago

I suppose there's the potential for making people cast a more critical eye over outlandish articles that appear to support their own position, if there's a possibility that it might have been created by "the enemy" to discredit them.

epicureanideal 10y ago
But it also creates an environment where you can't ever actually know what any group thinks. "Are there REALLY neo-nazis giving nazi salutes celebrating Trump's victory on video, or is this a staged event to make Trump look like he has neo-nazi supporters?" "Are there even that many well dressed, non-tattoo'd neo-nazis?" (Maybe there are... I don't know any personally, but I wasn't expecting to see people in button down shirts and khakis and clean looking... apologies to any neo-nazis that may be reading this for having a pre-formed impression of what you might be like.) And what happens when a group comes along that REALLY DOES have absolutely crazy views? "Oh well, that was discredited, but that group doesn't ACTUALLY believe the (minority group here) are the cause of all our problems. That's just some fake news designed to discredit them. I like some of the less crazy articles by these guys. I think I'll still vote for the (actually batshit crazy neo-nazi party by another name of 2032)."
- trprog 10y ago
  Although the medium is new the idea of publishing stuff that misrepresents other people's position is nothing new. Here is a relatively modern example from the very early 20th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of... And although the term has a very tinfoil hat connotation "false flag operations" have also been a thing for millennia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag Even young children understand the logic of "I will do a thing and try to make it look like someone else did it." >But it also creates an environment where you can't ever actually know what any group thinks. You never could really. At best you could get a vague approximation that was hopefully not inaccurate in any way that would bite you in the ass.
  - dvtv75 10y ago
    I seem to recall news video of Muslims firing guns into the air and celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center actually being video of Muslims celebrating a sporting match victory, about 15 years ago.
- Twisell 10y ago
  Your second idea is actually aleready used by the French far righ supporters. They manage to say horrible things and get away by saying it's just humor and that people who infuriate just don't get it. And as French people have a very high proudness of their free speech policy, it's then very hard to oppose without being called a vile censorship supporter...
  - gilleain 10y ago
    And the more general tactic was used very well by Trump during the campaign. For example when he claimed to be being "sarcastic" when he said Clinton and Obama "founded" ISIS. I found most fascinating - in a horrible way - the exchange he had with a conservative radio host (http://www.hughhewitt.com/donald-trump-makes-return-visit/ http://www.hughhewitt.com/donald-trump-makes-return-visit/): HH: I’ve got two more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace. DT: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton. HH: But he’s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He’s trying to kill them. DT: I don’t care. He was the founder. ... [later] DT: If he would have done things properly, you wouldn’t have had ISIS. The problem here is that he's saying a) Obama IS the founder of ISIS, and b) Obama created the conditions for their rise. One of these is reasonable (in the sense that it can be discussed) and one is clearly nonsense. Which means that he can claim to his supporters one thing - the crazy one - and then defend himself against critics by pointing to the saner version and cry 'sarcasm!'. It's like the phrase "talking out of both sides of your mouth" but at the same time.
usrusr 10y ago
Doubt in those stories should better be based on the part where it is just another get-rich-quickly scheme. Otherwise you end up stacking conspiracy on top of conspiracy, which at the end of the day leaves you even more vulnerable to fake news.

wyager 10y ago

> I hope we don't get to the point where it's really just all out information warfare I honestly thing we're headed for full-blown Strossian memetic warfare. The amount of high-level shilling this election cycle (both professional and amateur) was unreal.

visarga 10y ago

The tactic was to make money off the gullibility of people during elections and it worked. He's one of the most successful. You can't believe a professional liar who says he did it for the party, when you can also find in the same article that he makes 1000$ per day from it.

AndrewKemendo 10y ago

I hope we don't get to the point where it's really just all out information warfare Make no mistake, it's always been all out information warfare. The difference now is that the new messengers are not high ranking government or business people and the medium is faster and easier to penetrate. In the past you had to have background, credential and access to get your word into one of the few mediums available, Radio, TV or Print. Now all you need is to make something look good enough and find the right audience.

_nedR 10y ago
>Make no mistake, it's always been all out information warfare. If you look at evolution, it is just a fight over whose genes get passed over to the next generation. Genes are just biological encoding of information. Viruses are almost entirely strands of DNA, that is until they find a host cell to infect their information with. In a way it is all just information warfare.
- kingkawn 10y ago
  The focus of genes as the fundamental location of the information of life has been a multi-decade assumption that has not born the fruit it was assumed that the "code" of life would produce. Seeing life through the lens of genetics is as meaningful as judging it against any other arbitrary metric, and leaves out so much that it permits little insight beyond further refinement of the model. Much like the mistakes made recently by the established political class in over emphasizing the predictive power of their metrics even as the world itself spins further and further away from them.

noobermin 10y ago

>the fake news was created by the left to discredit the alt-right I would say that this individual who was a liberal tried to do this. This isn't like a group of leftists conspiring to do (anti-)propaganda. It is pretty stupid, and his continuation of it is extremely confusing. Sorry, but a side rant to the more "entrepreneurial" startup-cats who browse here. Would you consider this fellow and others like him an entrepreneur? I ask because there is talk in the article that he is one. Even if you take him at his word that he is trying to highlight the problem of disinformation rather than profit off of it, it seems quite suspect to me. A good analogy here is a cook serving spoiled food to highlight healthy and safe cooking habits, regardless of who it hurts. It makes no sense.

enraged_camel 10y ago
The term "entrepreneur" is value-neutral. It refers to someone who successfully forms a business venture by noticing and taking advantage of an opportunity or need.
- throwanem 10y ago
  > The term "entrepreneur" is value-neutral. Even on Hacker News?
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  Isn't "successful" a value-term? Aren't there "entrepreneurs" who repeatedly fail? My interpretation of entrepreneur is someome who fails with other people's money. The one you described is just a business person.
ehnto 10y ago
The continuation of it could be explained purely by the financial insentives from advertising on the sites. It doesn't sound like he would have any morale qualms with the whole situation. Sounds pretty entrepreneurial to me.
- messel 10y ago

golfer 10y ago

I don't believe his narrative for a second. He's in this for the money, period. He peddles lies for a living, and also is lying about "publicly denouncing" anything.

woogiewonka 10y ago
This exactly. He's in it purely for money. So Cal is full of shady characters like him...
jonathankoren 10y ago
He even said he tried to do with fake news targeting liberals, but it didn't work. If this was ideological, he never would try for an own goal. Vox even did an article on conspiracies and why they flourish on the right more than the left.[0] Essentially it's low trust, highly engaged people versus lesser engaged people. If you don't trust anything, and you're consuming "knowledge", you're going to latch on to conspiracies.[1] [0] http://www.vox.com/2015/12/10/9886222/conspiracy-theories-right-wing http://www.vox.com/2015/12/10/9886222/conspiracy-theories-ri... [1] Or at least, that's what they want you to think.[2] [2] FNORD
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  Let's assume for a moment that "conspiracies flourish on the right" is true. If so, I'd have to say that must only be true in parts of America. I have met lots of people with both right and left wing views outside of the USA (some of whom were also Americans), and didn't see any obvious correlation between political viewpoint and conspiracy theories. If anything I'd say there was a slight left wing slant if we include very generic conspiracy theories like "the banks and big corporations are trying to undermine us all". If it is true then I would guess the reason is the relative lack of conservative media in America vs say the UK. In the UK if you want to get viewpoints from the extreme left and right just pick up the Guardian and the Express and read both. In the USA it seems harder. Are there any mainstream conservative-leaning newspapers? Whenever I see the term "conservative media" used in America it always means Fox News which is only a TV channel. Breitbart seems to be tapping into that market segment but again, it's not a newspaper. If you have right wing views and have figured out that there aren't any media outlets that subscribe to your worldview, I can see that this would very easily look like a generic conspiracy and that in turn would breed receptivity to fake right-wing news simply because there are so few places with good reputation where such news is likely to be covered.

rhizome 10y ago

I hope we don't get to the point where it's really just all out information warfare... and it seems like we're already halfway there. Those in power have been there for all of our lives. J. Edgar Hoover only died in 1972 and his practice of information warfare was well in place by then. The "halfway" you speak of is in the citizen's awareness that anybody can be ratfucked[1] and that they're going to need to be able to protect themselves. Maybe there should be a 2nd Amendment for data, packets, or internet connections in general. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking

JKCalhoun 10y ago

> So in this case, the fake news was created by the left to discredit the alt-right, rather than by the alt-right to promote their views. And so after the gullible rubes swallowed his bit of fake news hook line and sinker, he ran to tell the world.

ec109685 10y ago
More like after he got caught, he felt the need to spin.
angry-hacker 10y ago
I'm not into making fake news but I might have found another bait: "YOU WON'T BELIEVE THIS! Progressives (lefties, or what you Americans call them) are behind fake news industry to spread lies and discredit conservatives!" All in all, it's an interesting bait and valuable lesson. Who knew you could make so much money like that? I guess now the train is gone and it might hit very hard a lot of blogs/new newspapers who try to get into the industry for being fake. Your AdSense account's value is getting higher, folks!

aikah 10y ago

> publish blatantly or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction Denounce those stories by making $30k a month as a spammer ? that's how this guy "denounces the alt-right" ? and NPR buys that argument just like that ?

Gargoyle 10y ago
In all these interviews with fake news makers, I've been amused that people who are obvious experts at telling people what they want to hear are still telling people what they want to hear. And it sails right by the real journalists un-noted.
ec109685 10y ago
I don't think the NPR passed judgement as to whether it should be bought or not. They are letting us decide. My value judgement is that this is a terrible way to make money and it is unfortunate blatant lies are not somehow slander, despite it being about a prominent individual. The rolling stone was held liable for their false article about sexual assault. I wish this guy could be as well. He duped millions of people.
- aikah 10y ago
  > I don't think the NPR passed judgement as to whether it should be bought or not. They are letting us decide. How about they actually investigate and find out whether he is telling the truth or lying ? This isn't passing judgement , this is actual reporting. So he was lying back then but now he is telling the truth and "journalists" should not pass judgement ?
  - omginternets 10y ago
    They did investigate: they're telling us that this guy makes significant money from his activities. Draw your own conclusions. They don't have to engage in finger-wagging in order to be reporters.

discardorama 10y ago

> the fake news was created by the left to discredit the alt-right I would have a hard time taking a guy who's the "godfather of fake news" at his word. Who's to say he isn't making this all up?

reitoei 10y ago

> I hope we don't get to the point where it's really just all out information warfare... and it seems like we're already halfway there. We live in a world where the Daily Mail is the most-visited English language news web site and people are using fucking toasters to launch DDOS attacks. The internet has gone to hell. We've already lost.

titzer 10y ago
It's not all bad. We're here, aren't we?
- reitoei 10y ago
  Going totally OT here for a sec, but you guys are awesome. Seriously. This is one of the only places I feel I can come where people are, for the most part, respectful and polite to each other. Nobody is pushing a personal agenda with religion, politics or ethics. Nobody is trying to convince you the world is flat or that aliens built the pyramids. Nobody cares if you're male/female/trans/whatever. Just a bunch of folks talking about their passion without the overhead (for want of a better word) of the everyday web. Places like HN are rare these days. If there is anything similar, please let me know.
  - TorKlingberg 10y ago
    Maybe a couple of years ago. Today, I wouldn’t trust the average HN commenter to evaluate even the silliest conspiracy theory. Even back then, it only worked because we aggressively downvoted the nutters and ignored their complaints.
  - forgetsusername 10y ago
    HackerNews happens to share your values and opinions on things like religion and politics. Donald Trump just won the election; did you read the opinions of people here on this happening? And while we may not be pushing a Flat World, there are plenty of conspiracy theories and ignorance on topics (eg. banks), and a fanaticism with regards to a other things (eg. Tesla) . Opposing views on these sorts of topics are smashed with down votes. My point is, of course it feels comfortable amongst like minded people. But don't extrapolate that to mean this is somehow a special place that's uniquely accepting of all opinions. If you don't believe me, do what the guy in the article did, and play devil's advocate in a few comment threads here.

Malarkey73 10y ago

I think he is being disingenuous. Maybe he started it as an experiment but it's obviously been all about the Benjamins for a long time (20-25 writers? $10000-30000 a month?).

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

False flag operations. Purposeful provocateurs. Seeing a lot of that lately. The thing to remember -- and this comes before the time there was a net -- is that the vast majority of people are nice, socially intelligent, and well-meaning. What the net is doing is convincing us that those in the out-group are simple-minded fools being led around by evil demagogues. That is not the case. But the net is not doing that because of bad people on the net. The net is doing that because humans are predisposed to consume lots of content that tells them this. The fault is internal to each of us. The net is just automating the ability of content providers to take advantage of it.

_pmf_ 10y ago

> So in this case, the fake news was created by the left to discredit the alt-right, rather than by the alt-right to promote their views. See also: the complete HRC campaign.