Hmm… you might actually be right. The article covers real events, but I reread it after your comment and I think the choice of emphasis and the things they chose to include are definitely at least a little odd.
they suspected many far-right accounts are actually foreign individuals cosplaying as Western reactionaries to farm clicks
That’s not what most people suspected.
many of the site’s most prominent far-right nationalists are actually international grifters
(Then the screenshot of someone claiming to be from Russia, who was actually based in Ireland. Which is backwards from the way that most of these have been working.)
It was difficult to prove this, as Twitter is incredibly buggy, so sometimes different people have different user experiences.
Then focusing repeatedly on the US government as the main culprit, when that’s not the data that most people have been observing.
they suspected many far-right accounts are actually foreign individuals cosplaying as Western reactionaries to farm clicks
That’s not what most people suspected.
What? Yes it is, most people with a functioning brain know most far right accounts are run by foreign individuals. You know this because each one has had a moment like this:
Everyone knows the Reich wing is easily manipulated, due to their gross ignorance and unwillingness to learn. Magats are only allowed to parrot fox entertainment talking points and other Reich wing news media, or be ostracized.
Yes it is, most people with a functioning brain know most far right accounts are run by foreign individuals.
It’s the emphasis on “individuals” and the out-of-left-field supposition “to farm clicks” that I objected to. The idea that they are being run not from within the US is 100% accurate, yes.
Ah ok, that read like you were saying it wasn’t a known issue. But yeah, it’s definitely not individuals, it’s foreign, and probably domestic, governments. I don’t doubt for a second that the group of pedophiles has outsourced their own propaganda.
Overall, we rate The Canary Left biased based on story selection and editorial positions that strongly favor the left. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to a failed fact check and consistent one-sided reporting that favors a progressive left perspective.
Super interesting. This source has always been ringing some kind of distant alarm bell for me, because of things that are just a tiny bit off like the examples I quoted above. I think I’ll take it out from !lefty_news@ibbit.at. I couldn’t care less about the MBFC rating, but Wikipedia’s list, I give a good bit of weight to.
I’ll leave this story up, because what the hell what’s the harm, but I think I’ll start to avoid them in the future. This is all good to know.
They do sometimes have useful and pertinent information, sure. But they also are screamingly wrong about a lot of stuff. They rate the New York Times as highly factual when they absolutely are not (“They are considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors. The failed fact checks were on Op-Eds and not straight news reporting.”), they rate MSNBC and Al Jazeera as “mixed” which is the same as the New York Post, they put Newsweek above both of them at “mostly factual” (“We also rate them as Mostly Factual in reported rather than high due to having to make corrections on false information after publication.”)… they’re just kind of generally all over the place.
It is more or less just one guy and his subjective impressions of each source, which normally would be semi-okay even if far inferior to Wikipedia’s consensus and analysis based community approach, but that one guy also has some flagrant biases (chief among them that a source has to be pro-Israel in order to be “factual” in his world.)
Hmm… you might actually be right. The article covers real events, but I reread it after your comment and I think the choice of emphasis and the things they chose to include are definitely at least a little odd.
That’s not what most people suspected.
(Then the screenshot of someone claiming to be from Russia, who was actually based in Ireland. Which is backwards from the way that most of these have been working.)
Then focusing repeatedly on the US government as the main culprit, when that’s not the data that most people have been observing.
I think you are right.
What? Yes it is, most people with a functioning brain know most far right accounts are run by foreign individuals. You know this because each one has had a moment like this:
Everyone knows the Reich wing is easily manipulated, due to their gross ignorance and unwillingness to learn. Magats are only allowed to parrot fox entertainment talking points and other Reich wing news media, or be ostracized.
It’s the emphasis on “individuals” and the out-of-left-field supposition “to farm clicks” that I objected to. The idea that they are being run not from within the US is 100% accurate, yes.
Ah ok, that read like you were saying it wasn’t a known issue. But yeah, it’s definitely not individuals, it’s foreign, and probably domestic, governments. I don’t doubt for a second that the group of pedophiles has outsourced their own propaganda.
So, not a great source?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/all/The_Canary
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-canary-uk/
Super interesting. This source has always been ringing some kind of distant alarm bell for me, because of things that are just a tiny bit off like the examples I quoted above. I think I’ll take it out from !lefty_news@ibbit.at. I couldn’t care less about the MBFC rating, but Wikipedia’s list, I give a good bit of weight to.
I’ll leave this story up, because what the hell what’s the harm, but I think I’ll start to avoid them in the future. This is all good to know.
It’s useful. They have useful and pertinent information.
I’ve seen some sensationalist stuff from the source before, have been avoiding it too.
They do sometimes have useful and pertinent information, sure. But they also are screamingly wrong about a lot of stuff. They rate the New York Times as highly factual when they absolutely are not (“They are considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors. The failed fact checks were on Op-Eds and not straight news reporting.”), they rate MSNBC and Al Jazeera as “mixed” which is the same as the New York Post, they put Newsweek above both of them at “mostly factual” (“We also rate them as Mostly Factual in reported rather than high due to having to make corrections on false information after publication.”)… they’re just kind of generally all over the place.
It is more or less just one guy and his subjective impressions of each source, which normally would be semi-okay even if far inferior to Wikipedia’s consensus and analysis based community approach, but that one guy also has some flagrant biases (chief among them that a source has to be pro-Israel in order to be “factual” in his world.)