Hope this will spread as much as save net neutrality posts
it’s way worse than that law actually, in US they “just” wanted your money, here the EU goverment wants to take our freedom without even giving a choice
SPREAD THIS
I’m just speechless. Dudes, this is wayyyy worse then The Net Neutrality bullshit in the US. Spread this like a wildfire! I don’t wanna lose everything I have thanks to this law!
Oh my gosh why am I only hearing about this now? Please everyone, spread this! Most of the time we talk about problems that are happening in the US but this time it’s in the EU and we need to stand against it!!
Please help if you can it’s going to make so much damage! Just for an example, both of my blogs will disappear if it isn’t stopped, ao3 will also disappear for european countries just like every website like these ones.
So please, help!!
Actually reblogging that one because 1) I checked the original poster and 2) I felt doubt when no french media outlet that wasn’t obviously alt-right dwelved on the subject, so here I go with a list of reasons this post is dead wrong.
1) made by a self-proclaimed fascist with a blog called “Think-critically” whose blog is full of racist, transphobic, fascistic, mysoginist content. Allow me to doubt.
2) the guy in the video is a friend of the EDL. You can see another of his videos from 2 days ago where Tommy Robinson, leader of this islamophobic group which is on numerous hate watch list, supports this channel’s messages.
3) EDRI and Techdirt are also websites associated with the alt-right.
4) From everything I’ve gathered about said article 13. It’s actually meant to stop, block and disable fake news campaigns. Like the ones Russia did in France in 2017, the UK during brexit, Italy, Germany, Poland, etc…. It’s a way to also put responsability on websites that host the information (YouTube, Twitter, Facebook. All 3 having a pretty tulmutuous relationship with European countries (Read: don’t comply with the law and refuse to pay taxes)) as a deterrent to make sure they’re careful during election season (Which, to their credit, they were during the Irish referendum, blocking foreign media outlets). That means
5) The alt-right just got 30k Tumblr users to sign a petition against blocking Russia’s interference in our elections, dressed it up as a brave struggle for freedom (This will END the internet guys. Trust me on this one. They want to destroy it because….. BAD. Not GOOD.) And y’all not checking your damn sources played right into their hands.
In conclusion: Fuck Putin and fuck the Alt-right, go out and vote, check your sources.
The EU are not going to shut the Internet down omg! You just got trolled by the alt right. The only thing in the UK and Dutch press with regards Internet access is over GDPR – which is a good EU regulation designed to protect consumers. If there’s no news about it, then there’s a reason for that???
The English Defence League (EDL) are such a nasty racist bunch of fuckers, and now many tens of thousands of you have just given them and their fascist, xenophobic cronies at places like InfoWars your support because you didn’t spend 5 fucking minutes Googling the truth behind this post.
They deliberately put shit together that sounds legit. Don’t people think anymore??? Read up on something before you mindlessly hit the reblog button! There’s no excuse to not check something out!
Seriously people please research things yourself when you see them. A very quick google search brings up 1 article from a website I’ve never heard of. If international news sites like, to name a few, BBC and Al Jazeera, aren’t reporting it, it is probably not an issue.
(I know I joked about it earlier but, honestly, please do your own research)
okay these guys are obviously a terrible source for the information and they surely warped it, but article 13 is potentially still not great?? Cause I did doubt this shit too, and I DID put in the time to read parts of the proposal and more specifically Article 13.
Like it says in the image above, Article 13 is about the use of protected content (meaning copyrighted stuff?), and stopping people that don’t have the rights to it to post said content. If they implement upload filters to catch copyrighted material this could be the end of memes (okay not a great reason to not strengthen copyright laws, but man the internet would sure be a lot duller) and anything that uses copyrighted material to create something new? it could be a huge encroachment on many creative things i and most of us enjoy on the internet, and on things people on here use to make money
The proposal in itself is a great thing and a good step towards keeping things like fake news from happening, but Article 13 itself is not really part of that??
Agreed. I’ve both researched and contacted my MEPs about this and I’m still concerned. Yeah, the guy in the video is a pro-Robinson, ‘free speech’ conservative dude.That doesn’t mean the Digital Single Market legislation doesn’t have masses of flaws (also GDPR has had quite a few flaws already with EU residents being blocked from quite a few sites that have decided to just block EU users rather than deal with it).
I’m also not sure how so many people think no one is reporting it.
Some parts of the Digital Single Market might deal with fake news, but the concern is specifically with Article 11, dubbed the ‘link tax’ and Article 13, partially linked above which will either massive change how some websites and/or EU residents will be blocked.
My pro-Article 13 Conservative MEP had this to say about it:
“I appreciate your concerns regarding the new Copyright reform proposals. However, the objective of Article 13 is to make sure authors, such as musicians, are appropriately paid for their work, and to ensure that platforms fairly share revenues which they derive from creative works on their sites with creators.
In the text under discussion, if one of the main purposes of a platform is to share copyright works, if they optimise these works and also derive profit from them, the platform would need to conclude a fair license with the rightholders, if rightholders request this. If not, platforms will have to check for and remove specific copyright content once this is supplied from rightholders. This could include pirated films which are on platforms at the same time as they are shown at the cinema. However, if a platform’s main purpose is not to share protected works, it does not optimise copyright works nor to make profit from them, it would not be required to conclude a license.
Closing this “value gap” is an essential part of the Copyright Directive, which Secretary of State Matthew Hancock supports addressing (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/matt-hancocks-speech-at-the-alliance-for-intellectual-property-reception) . The ECR supports the general policy justification behind it, which is to make sure that platforms are responsible for their sites and that authors are fairly rewarded and incentivised to create work. Content recognition will help to make sure creators, such as song writers, can be better identified and paid fairly for their work. Nevertheless, this should not be done at the expense of user’s rights. We are dedicated to striking the right balance between adequately rewarding rightholders and safeguarding users’ rights. There are therefore important safeguards to protect users’ rights and to make sure only proportionate measures are taken.
As regards to Article 11 and the “link tax”, this remains under discussion. The objective is to enable the publishing industry and journalists to be given their fair share of revenue. However, as currently drafted it is too far reaching for the ECR to be able to lend its support to it.”
There is nothing in that on dealing with fake news or Russia and even the Conservatives – the profit focused authoritarians that they are – think Article 11 is too far.
For those interested in researching further, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0593 is the legislation in question so you don’t have to scroll back up and https://saveyourinternet.eu/ gives scripts for contacting MEPs because seriously the wording of the legislation butchers the fair use of creative works that many of us rely on. It’s like youtube’s copyright claims issues (which has already been used by abusers to try to get personal details of people) on all the steroids from what I can see.
this is why I reflexively search for links. Even for stupid shit like a ‘screenshot’ from Hideo Kojima’s twitter that talked about getting weed from some actor or another. Some people in the comments knew it was fake. Then there were other people taking it as proof of why they loved or hated Kojima, and a boatload of people worried for him because of Japan’s strict anti-marijuana laws.
tl;dr while you may personally be in on the joke, others might not be. And you won’t catch every one. Seriously, post a link, either to the source or a reputable third party, if the source is no longer available.
1. if there’s not a source, find a source. if you can’t find one, ask the person. if they can’t find one, don’t believe it.
2. if there is a source, click it. people sincerely reblogging those ‘shocking’ posts where the source leads to a rickroll or something, and they don’t know because they never clicked it: this one is for you
3. if you’ve clicked the source, look at what it is. is it the onion? Is it the daily mash? look at the other articles on the site and look for the ‘about’. please don’t be one of those people who takes the onion seriously.
4. if you’ve clicked the source and it’s not satire, how reputable is it? bbc news is a lot more reputable than supermystichoroscopesforonly99p.com. who is saying it matters. this can be hard if you don’t know much about the site, but a bit of research can help. wikipedia is a dodgy one because whilst anyone can edit it, lots of articles are under strict surveillance and will quickly get edited back. if you see a claim on wikipedia that looks strange, refer back to point one. wikipedia sources/ cites too.
5. anecdotes are not evidence! someone going ‘one time my dog ate a can of woofers dog food and died two days later’ doesn’t suggest woofers kills dogs. the plural of anecdotes is not data. sure, when 100 people are all going ‘hey, this thing makes XYZ awful things happen?’, listen, but don’t take one person’s experiences as gospel
6. ‘idk, some news article’ is not a source. ‘I saw it in some random interview a few weeks ago’ is not a source. ‘I can’t remember’ is definitely not a source.
7. if something seems too good, bad or weird to be true, maybe it is! a two minute google search may help!
8. basically ignore the daily mail bye
9. if it’s something that would make major international news if true but you can only find one source talking about it, it’s not true
10. Check the date. Don’t be the one to freak out over a five-year-old hurricane warning.
11. If you see anyone laughing at/disregarding/demonising people who reblog to ask for a source, don’t trust that person.
12. Read the whole article! So many times a headline is completely misleading, and created only for clickbait. See that recent “Clinton doesn’t believe in free college” headline. She actually said she doesn’t believe the state should pay for free college for the wealthy.
13. Screenshots of tweets and Facebook posts aren’t sources, they’re unverifiable and usually unashamedly biased towards the writers views and agendas.
Especially when the person making the Tumblr post is also the person who all the tweets belong to. It’s amazing how many times I’ve seen “Look at the storm X is causing on Twitter!” and it’s literally the same username as the blogger…
14. If you’re curious about a claim on wikipedia, you can also always click through to the ‘Talk’ page – very commonly there’s a debate there documenting the history of the claim, objections, and counter-objections: that discussion gives you a LOT more info to base your judgement on. Sometimes there’s even a formal dispute process back there, which again, gives you some context for the claim in the article itself.
The article’s edit history can also be enlightening. That takes more effort to search through, but if nothing else, you can check to see if a claim was added two minutes or two months ago, and how actively the page is being monitored/edited. If the edit history is a ghost-town, there haven’t been a lot of critical eyes on the article, and you should proceed cautiously. Flipside, a lot of activity doesn’t necessarily mean the article is sound, but it DOES mean there’s been more opportunity for problems to have been caught and fixed, and more opportunity for substantive discussion to have appeared on the Talk page (should discussion be warranted).
Corollaries to #3: 3a. Absolutely check out the source’s “About” and other articles, but also do a quick internet search to learn about their credibility or lack thereof. For instance, while it’s pretty immediately obvious that The Sun isn’t a credible source, the layout of the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror may make them appear vaguely credible to someone who isn’t aware that they’re both sensationalist tabloids (albeit with the former considerably more sensationalist than the latter). 3b. Here is a list of known fake news sites for your perusal. Familiarize yourselves with the names/URLs for future reference. Similarly, here is a list of potentially unreliable sources on Wikipedia (which is somewhat ironic, seeing as Wikipedia itself isn’t the most reliable of sources).
Corollaries to #11: 11a. OP may have already been sealioned to the point that their natural assumption is that you’re doing the same thing. 11b. The post’s claims may be something that it’s very easy to find a source for with a quick internet search and—especially if the post is popular and gets a lot of notes (and thus a lot of people individually asking for the source)—they may be irritated that you couldn’t take the initiative to do so yourself. This is especially true if they’ve already answered this question on their blog… so check the OP’s blog before you ask, please! All of this goes double for people who are posting something about a form of marginalization that they personally face, as it may feel to them that you’re asking them to do additional free labor to educate you. Being snarky in return isn’t the most high-minded thing to do, but we’re all only human. That said: Always, always be careful about who you trust online. (And offline!) Someone who is an asshole to someone who asks them for a source may or may not be trustworthy… but either way, it’s up to you whether that’s someone you want to spend much time around.
Corollary to #13: 13a. Screenshots from any form of media aren’t credible sources. They’re very easily falsified. This is how we can get screenshots that show a user making posts that they never actually made (someone cut and pasted the user’s icon and username over the actual OP’s) and this is how we can get screenshots that aren’t of the complete post, thus totally altering the content’s message. Try doing a reverse image search on TinEye and filter the results by Oldest. If that doesn’t yield any results, ask OP for a link. 13b. Sometimes posts are deleted and screenshots are all that are left. If OP provides you with a link that is invalid, try entering it into the WayBack Machine and see if you have any luck there. If not, don’t discount the screenshot altogether… but don’t count it as evidence in and of itself.
15. Check the notes on the post. OP or other users may have added additional relevant information… or debunked the post’s original claims altogether.
16. Reverse image search (Google, TinEye, etc.) is your friend. Really. That’s how you can learn, say, that that photo of a destroyed city isn’t actually of the city that the post purports it to be at all… and that the photo is also five years old.
18. Learn to use basic search engine modifiers. (The technical terms used may sound intimidating at first, but I promise that the actual process of using these techniques is pretty simple.) This will allow you to pinpoint the information you’re looking for much more efficiently, saving you the time and energy to fact-check other claims you run into! 😉
19. If a source is a scientific research or anything of the likes, check its impact factor. Find the journal the study was published in, and Google “nameofthejournal impact factor”
Google will already give that to you, but it’s even more useful if you look for the impact factor on researchgate. There you will find a graph of how the journal has been doing in the last few years.
An unknown journal with low impact factor but that is steadily rising? Might be something worth checking out, but I’d suggest you to look for references of that article on bigger journals to attest the credit.
A very well known journal with an impact factor looking like a fall into the earth’s core? Seems like they lost credibility, don’t trust them.
Overall, with proper exceptions that need to be analysed if you have the tools for it (for example carefully reading the study and checking if their research is scientifically valid), the rule is: if the journal is big it’s likely legit, if the journal is small check for references in bigger journals; if there are no references in bigger journals the study isn’t worth noticing (yet or never).
It may look unjust because it penalizes smaller journals that might be doing a great job, but in the age of fake news this is how the scientific community protects itself. Even if you’re small, if you’re legit your study will be crossreferenced and repeated by bigger journals, and you’ll get your credit (which will raise your impact factor, which will make your journal more legit etc).
Do keep in mind, Journals and Articles have independent research/impact factors. Check both of them.
Impact factor of the journal is a terrible criterion for how respectable the results of a study are.
First, top journals have very different impact factors depending on the field.
Two, high impact factor journals have higher retraction rates. In particular, Nature and Science editors publish articles with controversial or shaky but ‘sexy’ results to drive discussion.
Omg this kid doesn’t deserve 20 years in prison for protecting his own mother! This is fucking ridiculous. It was definitely a defense. He’s 13 years now, just imagine how traumatized he must be after watching his mother getting sexually abused and brutally beaten by a stranger? I am sure, if the boy was white American he would be carried carefully out of the house and would be given probation. That’s how white privilege works all around the world.
yall really gotta stop believin every story you hear on tumblr. jesus christ.
first, i tried to find the story, the top result being this change.org petition followed by a bunch of stories that were completely unrelated.
well that didnt work, let’s be a little more specific…
…
the one result that was relevant came from a site called wnews.world whose front page looks like a goddamn tabloid had sex with a hipster minimalist web designer.
you can find a link to the related story here, though i recommend against clicking and giving them any kind of attention. CW: death.
finally, i attempted a reverse image search, which didn’t provide anything more helpful beyond twitter accounts retweeting this same exact thing you fuckers fell for.
but i did find another article, which tells a different story.
huh that picture looks familiar….
but wait, what’s this?
a picture of the same kid at a different angle?
and one of him with his mom, also at a different angle?
please stop blindly believing everything you see on the internet. i do it too sometimes and i need a slap in the face when i do. i hope you take this as your slap in the face.
i have nothing but love for you and only want you to be aware about the things you believe in. false stories like this spread like wildfire because they were created just to be shared as many times as possible to make money for the organizations that create them.
Urocyon's Jaunts 2.0 
You must be logged in to post a comment.