5 ms·

I read their stuff, though most of what I read comes out of the weekly emails. There is some actual good content, though like all other outlets, I'm sure there

by mises 8y ago

I read their stuff, though most of what I read comes out of the weekly emails. There is some actual good content, though like all other outlets, I'm sure there's some bad. Here's some of the stuff I see on their front page right now: * China's belt-and-road * Venezuela (worth noting they were an early reporter on the aid-burning) * Anti-Tesla stuff * Anti-SEC, pro-Elon Musk stuff * Stop Brexit * Boeing * China's massive debt load * They still like gold Yes, it's clear they have their own set of biases, again like every other outlet. But they don't seem to be super far left or right, and certainly don't seem to be "russian propaganda".

cloakandswagger 8y ago
They definitely pick up a lot of Russian talking points (see their virulent skepticism over the Skripal attack), but they serve as a very useful counterbalance to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, et al. I shudder at whatever Orwellian hellscape we've landed in when people celebrate the censorship of a differently minded news source instead of utilizing it: read both it and your mainstream sources with a filter, apply your own independent thought and judgment and arrive at your own conclusion.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  > "Russian talking points" Anti-Maduro rioters being responsible for the aid-truck fire was a "Russian talking point" until a few days ago when the New York Times, America's most venerable newspaper of record, finally admitted it was true. Credit to arcseco for drawing my attention to this: https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-about-burning-humanitarian-trucks-in-venezuela-shows-how-us-govt-and-media-spread-fake-news/ https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-... At least this time it didn't take the New York Times the better part of 60 years to admit they were wrong, as it did when they were publishing Russian talking points: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty
  - cloakandswagger 8y ago
    I totally agree, and just because something is promoted strongly by Russia doesn't mean it's false, it just highlights the importance of reading a variety of different sources and applying your own critical thinking to find the truth. Two examples: The Venezuelan aid-truck stunt. Clearly orchestrated by the US to help nudge regime change. On the other hand, the MH17 crash: clearly a case of Russian forces mistakenly shooting down a passenger jet and coming up with some outlandish claims against the evidence (ie that it was faked with CGI). Both are instances where the truth would've been lost on someone who exclusively reads and believes only one source of news.
    - rightbyte 8y ago
      "clearly a case of Russian forces mistakenly shooting down a passenger jet" Why not: "probably a case of Russian or Ukrainian forces shooting down a passenger jet"? Why "clearly" US burning the truck instead of say a local false flag or truck malfunction? You make a lot of assumptions for saying something is clear.
      - darkpuma 8y ago
        What should be clear is that neither the American nor Russian media will always be right, and neither the American nor the Russian media will always be wrong, and sometimes one will be right while the other is wrong, while other times both will be wrong or both will be right. I mean all of that is just common sense. The relative rate at which any of those scenarios unfolds is up in the air, but it's pretty clear all of those scenarios happen at least some of the time. When you see somebody claiming otherwise (e.g. "Russian media disagrees with American media, so the Russian media must be wrong." or "American media disagrees with the Russian media, so the American media must be wrong") you can be sure their opinion is invalid. They could legitimize their opinion by acknowledging a degree of uncertainty, by adding the word "probably" to either of those statements. Here is the key: recognizing the possibility that you could be wrong. Acknowledgement of uncertainty may run counter to ego, but it's important. Or maybe I'm wrong about that.
- minikites 8y ago
  >a differently minded news source What else falls in this category? Flat Earthers? Anti-vaccine advocates? Holocaust deniers? It's clear that the majority of people have poor information literacy skills and one consequence of that poor information literacy results in measles being an actual problem in 2019.
  - a_tractor 8y ago
    >What else falls in this category? Another person who thinks they should be the arbiter of the truth for the world, attempting to make an argument for ideological limitations on speech. The entire basis for thinking democracy is even possible, much less a good idea, is that man is a rational being capable of applying logical and moral reasoning in pursuit of the truth, or least the best answer. You seem to disagree. The allowance of free expression on all topics and ideas along with rational debate ensures that better ideas are not suppressed and that the worst ideas get exposed and defeated. >Flat Earthers? Shouldn't be difficult to prove wrong. >Anti-vaccine advocates? Science should be able to put their fears to rest while disproving their arguments. No? >Holocaust deniers? Again, there is historical evidence that can be used to defeat their arguments and expose their true agenda. No? What part of suppressing those ideas, or silencing their advocates rather than debating them, proves that your argument is the correct one? Because you happen to think you have authority with whatever consensus you think exists? Do you think truth is based on consensus? Do you not see how it makes your position more suspicious (as in fraudulent) if you are not willing to address the challenges of skeptics or even devil's advocates? Also, given what we know about astroturfing and social media bots, how many of these people do you really think there are? >It's clear that the majority of people have poor information literacy skills Well, that would have been even more true when the concept of free speech was established, when literacy rates were truly abysmal, as in the vast majority of people in even the most advanced societies couldn't even read. You are saying the problem is either that people today can acquire the information and/or that they lack the capacity to apply reason and logic in order to separate truth from fiction? So is the problem that information which isn't necessarily "true" or "morally good" is available? Or is it that people lack the tools needed in order to separate truth from fiction, reality from theory, good from bad, etc? Is it an education/skill development thing, or a mental capacity/IQ thing? Where do ethics and morality come in to play, and what would that have to do with "information literacy" when speaking of anti-vax people? >and one consequence of that poor information literacy results in measles being an actual problem in 2019. Measles was declared eliminated from the United States in 2000. Did people have higher "information literacy" back in the 80s and 90s than they do now? Was there nobody who was against vaccinations in the 80s and 90s? And if it was eliminated from the US by the year 2000, and it is a re-emerging problem in 2019, then didn't it actually have to be imported? It couldn't have anything to do with the 10s of millions of illiterate and poorly educated, un-vaccinated illegal immigrants from the third world that have been flooding this country for the last several decades, could it? No, it must be the ${insert ideological opponent of the day} and their ${straw-man trait based on bigoted assumptions} who are wrong.
polotics 8y ago
ZeroHedge used to have more real economics and less MAGA/RT BS. Regardless this here is a pure Streisand effect in the making...
- duxup 8y ago
  I guess I'm going to argue minor differences here but I thought the Streisand Effect was more about someone trying to hide a thing via lawsuit or something and that usually involves some effort to actually remove the thing from the internet or visibility. I don't think Facebook cares if ZH has a website or people can visit. They just don't let that content on their platform. To me that's different than the Streisand Effect. ZH i'm sure would like similar results no doubt as far as attention goes.
- malshe 8y ago
  I used to read ZeroHedge quite regularly until 2012. Then I slowly stopped reading it because I felt that the signal to noise ratio was diminishing
dionian 8y ago
If I used facebook, I would be pretty mad that they are choosing what content to censor and not letting my exercise my own judgment.
asdf333 8y ago
i am a frequent reader and i came to the conclusion that it must be compromised....it is pretty far right and much more pro trump and pro russia than many other comparable financial blogs

by mises 8y ago

cloakandswagger 8y ago

They definitely pick up a lot of Russian talking points (see their virulent skepticism over the Skripal attack), but they serve as a very useful counterbalance to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, et al. I shudder at whatever Orwellian hellscape we've landed in when people celebrate the censorship of a differently minded news source instead of utilizing it: read both it and your mainstream sources with a filter, apply your own independent thought and judgment and arrive at your own conclusion.

darkpuma 8y ago
> "Russian talking points" Anti-Maduro rioters being responsible for the aid-truck fire was a "Russian talking point" until a few days ago when the New York Times, America's most venerable newspaper of record, finally admitted it was true. Credit to arcseco for drawing my attention to this: https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-about-burning-humanitarian-trucks-in-venezuela-shows-how-us-govt-and-media-spread-fake-news/ https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-... At least this time it didn't take the New York Times the better part of 60 years to admit they were wrong, as it did when they were publishing Russian talking points: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty
- cloakandswagger 8y ago
  I totally agree, and just because something is promoted strongly by Russia doesn't mean it's false, it just highlights the importance of reading a variety of different sources and applying your own critical thinking to find the truth. Two examples: The Venezuelan aid-truck stunt. Clearly orchestrated by the US to help nudge regime change. On the other hand, the MH17 crash: clearly a case of Russian forces mistakenly shooting down a passenger jet and coming up with some outlandish claims against the evidence (ie that it was faked with CGI). Both are instances where the truth would've been lost on someone who exclusively reads and believes only one source of news.
  - rightbyte 8y ago
    "clearly a case of Russian forces mistakenly shooting down a passenger jet" Why not: "probably a case of Russian or Ukrainian forces shooting down a passenger jet"? Why "clearly" US burning the truck instead of say a local false flag or truck malfunction? You make a lot of assumptions for saying something is clear.
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      What should be clear is that neither the American nor Russian media will always be right, and neither the American nor the Russian media will always be wrong, and sometimes one will be right while the other is wrong, while other times both will be wrong or both will be right. I mean all of that is just common sense. The relative rate at which any of those scenarios unfolds is up in the air, but it's pretty clear all of those scenarios happen at least some of the time. When you see somebody claiming otherwise (e.g. "Russian media disagrees with American media, so the Russian media must be wrong." or "American media disagrees with the Russian media, so the American media must be wrong") you can be sure their opinion is invalid. They could legitimize their opinion by acknowledging a degree of uncertainty, by adding the word "probably" to either of those statements. Here is the key: recognizing the possibility that you could be wrong. Acknowledgement of uncertainty may run counter to ego, but it's important. Or maybe I'm wrong about that.
minikites 8y ago
>a differently minded news source What else falls in this category? Flat Earthers? Anti-vaccine advocates? Holocaust deniers? It's clear that the majority of people have poor information literacy skills and one consequence of that poor information literacy results in measles being an actual problem in 2019.
- a_tractor 8y ago
  >What else falls in this category? Another person who thinks they should be the arbiter of the truth for the world, attempting to make an argument for ideological limitations on speech. The entire basis for thinking democracy is even possible, much less a good idea, is that man is a rational being capable of applying logical and moral reasoning in pursuit of the truth, or least the best answer. You seem to disagree. The allowance of free expression on all topics and ideas along with rational debate ensures that better ideas are not suppressed and that the worst ideas get exposed and defeated. >Flat Earthers? Shouldn't be difficult to prove wrong. >Anti-vaccine advocates? Science should be able to put their fears to rest while disproving their arguments. No? >Holocaust deniers? Again, there is historical evidence that can be used to defeat their arguments and expose their true agenda. No? What part of suppressing those ideas, or silencing their advocates rather than debating them, proves that your argument is the correct one? Because you happen to think you have authority with whatever consensus you think exists? Do you think truth is based on consensus? Do you not see how it makes your position more suspicious (as in fraudulent) if you are not willing to address the challenges of skeptics or even devil's advocates? Also, given what we know about astroturfing and social media bots, how many of these people do you really think there are? >It's clear that the majority of people have poor information literacy skills Well, that would have been even more true when the concept of free speech was established, when literacy rates were truly abysmal, as in the vast majority of people in even the most advanced societies couldn't even read. You are saying the problem is either that people today can acquire the information and/or that they lack the capacity to apply reason and logic in order to separate truth from fiction? So is the problem that information which isn't necessarily "true" or "morally good" is available? Or is it that people lack the tools needed in order to separate truth from fiction, reality from theory, good from bad, etc? Is it an education/skill development thing, or a mental capacity/IQ thing? Where do ethics and morality come in to play, and what would that have to do with "information literacy" when speaking of anti-vax people? >and one consequence of that poor information literacy results in measles being an actual problem in 2019. Measles was declared eliminated from the United States in 2000. Did people have higher "information literacy" back in the 80s and 90s than they do now? Was there nobody who was against vaccinations in the 80s and 90s? And if it was eliminated from the US by the year 2000, and it is a re-emerging problem in 2019, then didn't it actually have to be imported? It couldn't have anything to do with the 10s of millions of illiterate and poorly educated, un-vaccinated illegal immigrants from the third world that have been flooding this country for the last several decades, could it? No, it must be the ${insert ideological opponent of the day} and their ${straw-man trait based on bigoted assumptions} who are wrong.

polotics 8y ago

ZeroHedge used to have more real economics and less MAGA/RT BS. Regardless this here is a pure Streisand effect in the making...

duxup 8y ago
I guess I'm going to argue minor differences here but I thought the Streisand Effect was more about someone trying to hide a thing via lawsuit or something and that usually involves some effort to actually remove the thing from the internet or visibility. I don't think Facebook cares if ZH has a website or people can visit. They just don't let that content on their platform. To me that's different than the Streisand Effect. ZH i'm sure would like similar results no doubt as far as attention goes.
malshe 8y ago
I used to read ZeroHedge quite regularly until 2012. Then I slowly stopped reading it because I felt that the signal to noise ratio was diminishing

dionian 8y ago

If I used facebook, I would be pretty mad that they are choosing what content to censor and not letting my exercise my own judgment.

asdf333 8y ago

i am a frequent reader and i came to the conclusion that it must be compromised....it is pretty far right and much more pro trump and pro russia than many other comparable financial blogs