Nearly everyone has a smart phone now and can access a bewildering amount of information with a simple click, then, their phones are no help to them, as they must decide for themselves what is true and what isn't. That's a problem, because there are no rules or laws requiring accuracy or t***hfulness for anything offered on the world wide web.
Today on the show "Full Measure", was a report about Wikipedia and it's "user editing" of information. It was revealed that many of the "editors" are paid salaries by various entities - to control content, i.e., information. As a demonstration, one of the contributors added an edit concerning a medical condition that Wikipedia classified as a "delusional condition", refuting that claim, by referring searchers to a Mayo clinic website that classified the malady as a legitimate medical condition. Within 38 minutes, the new edit was deleted by one of the anonymous "editors", who was probably working for a pharmaceutical company.
We are inundated by all kinds of claims every day in every conceivable media format. There are some "t***h in advertising" rules, there are "fact checking" for the wild claims made by political candidates - but the user of internet content must do the fact checking themselves as there are no rules at all. How does one "fact check" on internet content, using the internet? One must check multiple sources, to begin with - and carefully check the source of the material one is reading.
There are multiple websites for c*****e c****e proponents and multiple websites for opponents - each claiming scientific data, theories and "facts", that appear to support their claims. They both cannot be 100% correct, so the user must determine which data set they wish to believe. This phenomena is true for nearly any given subject, but the more controversial a topic is, the more "information" is found available on the web. There is a "first come, first believed" paradigm at work, whereby competition for being "first" to show up on a word search is fierce - and companies that provide search engines ( Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc.) cash in - by selling "priority" to competing companies. You pay more, your "stuff" shows up first on a word search. Ever noticed that some "stuff" shows up on your search engine, that is unrelated to your search?
There is a war going on for our attention - and our beliefs - and there are literally 10's of 1000's of entities engaging in this battle. Name any entity you wish, from political, social, or commercial categories, then look for information about them on the web and see what comes up - and look carefully at all the other "stuff" that pops up on your screen. Smart phones are only as smart as the person using them and "information" is only as true as you BELIEVE it to be. For someone who has no idea about a subject already, the "first come, first believed" paradigm is golden.
That's me, I believe what I believe if it makes sense, until proof of error in my belief, ha... Don D. ;)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lpnmajor wrote:
Nearly everyone has a smart phone now and can access a bewildering amount of information with a simple click, then, their phones are no help to them, as they must decide for themselves what is true and what isn't. That's a problem, because there are no rules or laws requiring accuracy or t***hfulness for anything offered on the world wide web.
Today on the show "Full Measure", was a report about Wikipedia and it's "user editing" of information. It was revealed that many of the "editors" are paid salaries by various entities - to control content, i.e., information. As a demonstration, one of the contributors added an edit concerning a medical condition that Wikipedia classified as a "delusional condition", refuting that claim, by referring searchers to a Mayo clinic website that classified the malady as a legitimate medical condition. Within 38 minutes, the new edit was deleted by one of the anonymous "editors", who was probably working for a pharmaceutical company.
We are inundated by all kinds of claims every day in every conceivable media format. There are some "t***h in advertising" rules, there are "fact checking" for the wild claims made by political candidates - but the user of internet content must do the fact checking themselves as there are no rules at all. How does one "fact check" on internet content, using the internet? One must check multiple sources, to begin with - and carefully check the source of the material one is reading.
There are multiple websites for c*****e c****e proponents and multiple websites for opponents - each claiming scientific data, theories and "facts", that appear to support their claims. They both cannot be 100% correct, so the user must determine which data set they wish to believe. This phenomena is true for nearly any given subject, but the more controversial a topic is, the more "information" is found available on the web. There is a "first come, first believed" paradigm at work, whereby competition for being "first" to show up on a word search is fierce - and companies that provide search engines ( Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc.) cash in - by selling "priority" to competing companies. You pay more, your "stuff" shows up first on a word search. Ever noticed that some "stuff" shows up on your search engine, that is unrelated to your search?
There is a war going on for our attention - and our beliefs - and there are literally 10's of 1000's of entities engaging in this battle. Name any entity you wish, from political, social, or commercial categories, then look for information about them on the web and see what comes up - and look carefully at all the other "stuff" that pops up on your screen. Smart phones are only as smart as the person using them and "information" is only as true as you BELIEVE it to be. For someone who has no idea about a subject already, the "first come, first believed" paradigm is golden.
Nearly everyone has a smart phone now and can acce... (
show quote)
lpnmajor wrote:
Nearly everyone has a smart phone now and can access a bewildering amount of information with a simple click, then, their phones are no help to them, as they must decide for themselves what is true and what isn't. That's a problem, because there are no rules or laws requiring accuracy or t***hfulness for anything offered on the world wide web.
Today on the show "Full Measure", was a report about Wikipedia and it's "user editing" of information. It was revealed that many of the "editors" are paid salaries by various entities - to control content, i.e., information. As a demonstration, one of the contributors added an edit concerning a medical condition that Wikipedia classified as a "delusional condition", refuting that claim, by referring searchers to a Mayo clinic website that classified the malady as a legitimate medical condition. Within 38 minutes, the new edit was deleted by one of the anonymous "editors", who was probably working for a pharmaceutical company.
We are inundated by all kinds of claims every day in every conceivable media format. There are some "t***h in advertising" rules, there are "fact checking" for the wild claims made by political candidates - but the user of internet content must do the fact checking themselves as there are no rules at all. How does one "fact check" on internet content, using the internet? One must check multiple sources, to begin with - and carefully check the source of the material one is reading.
There are multiple websites for c*****e c****e proponents and multiple websites for opponents - each claiming scientific data, theories and "facts", that appear to support their claims. They both cannot be 100% correct, so the user must determine which data set they wish to believe. This phenomena is true for nearly any given subject, but the more controversial a topic is, the more "information" is found available on the web. There is a "first come, first believed" paradigm at work, whereby competition for being "first" to show up on a word search is fierce - and companies that provide search engines ( Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc.) cash in - by selling "priority" to competing companies. You pay more, your "stuff" shows up first on a word search. Ever noticed that some "stuff" shows up on your search engine, that is unrelated to your search?
There is a war going on for our attention - and our beliefs - and there are literally 10's of 1000's of entities engaging in this battle. Name any entity you wish, from political, social, or commercial categories, then look for information about them on the web and see what comes up - and look carefully at all the other "stuff" that pops up on your screen. Smart phones are only as smart as the person using them and "information" is only as true as you BELIEVE it to be. For someone who has no idea about a subject already, the "first come, first believed" paradigm is golden.
Nearly everyone has a smart phone now and can acce... (
show quote)
Trust nothing you can't prove. For instance (I'm sorry to mention this), but
Obamas birth certificate comes to mind.
The fact is that this has always been the case, we just didn't have so many people calling out the cover-ups and omissions.
The press knew about many of JFK's sexual exploits, we just didn't hear about it.
There was evidence our interventions in other regions and our imperialist actions, it was simply hidden from the general public.
We could go on and on with all of the instances of how propaganda has been used over the ages to keep people in the dark, couldn't we?
lpnmajor wrote:
Nearly everyone has a smart phone now and can access a bewildering amount of information with a simple click, then, their phones are no help to them, as they must decide for themselves what is true and what isn't. That's a problem, because there are no rules or laws requiring accuracy or t***hfulness for anything offered on the world wide web.
Today on the show "Full Measure", was a report about Wikipedia and it's "user editing" of information. It was revealed that many of the "editors" are paid salaries by various entities - to control content, i.e., information. As a demonstration, one of the contributors added an edit concerning a medical condition that Wikipedia classified as a "delusional condition", refuting that claim, by referring searchers to a Mayo clinic website that classified the malady as a legitimate medical condition. Within 38 minutes, the new edit was deleted by one of the anonymous "editors", who was probably working for a pharmaceutical company.
We are inundated by all kinds of claims every day in every conceivable media format. There are some "t***h in advertising" rules, there are "fact checking" for the wild claims made by political candidates - but the user of internet content must do the fact checking themselves as there are no rules at all. How does one "fact check" on internet content, using the internet? One must check multiple sources, to begin with - and carefully check the source of the material one is reading.
There are multiple websites for c*****e c****e proponents and multiple websites for opponents - each claiming scientific data, theories and "facts", that appear to support their claims. They both cannot be 100% correct, so the user must determine which data set they wish to believe. This phenomena is true for nearly any given subject, but the more controversial a topic is, the more "information" is found available on the web. There is a "first come, first believed" paradigm at work, whereby competition for being "first" to show up on a word search is fierce - and companies that provide search engines ( Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc.) cash in - by selling "priority" to competing companies. You pay more, your "stuff" shows up first on a word search. Ever noticed that some "stuff" shows up on your search engine, that is unrelated to your search?
There is a war going on for our attention - and our beliefs - and there are literally 10's of 1000's of entities engaging in this battle. Name any entity you wish, from political, social, or commercial categories, then look for information about them on the web and see what comes up - and look carefully at all the other "stuff" that pops up on your screen. Smart phones are only as smart as the person using them and "information" is only as true as you BELIEVE it to be. For someone who has no idea about a subject already, the "first come, first believed" paradigm is golden.
Nearly everyone has a smart phone now and can acce... (
show quote)
And you will notice every single page has at least 1 popup and 3 to 5 ads. get it through your heads sensationalism is about money. P.T. Barnum "There is a sucker born every minute" quote from Jim Ahrens " A sheep born every Second". Wake up separate their fiction and their agenda's from t***h.You will find 90 % of it is pure rubbish.
lpnmajor wrote:
Nearly everyone has a smart phone now and can access a bewildering amount of information with a simple click, then, their phones are no help to them, as they must decide for themselves what is true and what isn't. That's a problem, because there are no rules or laws requiring accuracy or t***hfulness for anything offered on the world wide web.
Today on the show "Full Measure", was a report about Wikipedia and it's "user editing" of information. It was revealed that many of the "editors" are paid salaries by various entities - to control content, i.e., information. As a demonstration, one of the contributors added an edit concerning a medical condition that Wikipedia classified as a "delusional condition", refuting that claim, by referring searchers to a Mayo clinic website that classified the malady as a legitimate medical condition. Within 38 minutes, the new edit was deleted by one of the anonymous "editors", who was probably working for a pharmaceutical company.
We are inundated by all kinds of claims every day in every conceivable media format. There are some "t***h in advertising" rules, there are "fact checking" for the wild claims made by political candidates - but the user of internet content must do the fact checking themselves as there are no rules at all. How does one "fact check" on internet content, using the internet? One must check multiple sources, to begin with - and carefully check the source of the material one is reading.
There are multiple websites for c*****e c****e proponents and multiple websites for opponents - each claiming scientific data, theories and "facts", that appear to support their claims. They both cannot be 100% correct, so the user must determine which data set they wish to believe. This phenomena is true for nearly any given subject, but the more controversial a topic is, the more "information" is found available on the web. There is a "first come, first believed" paradigm at work, whereby competition for being "first" to show up on a word search is fierce - and companies that provide search engines ( Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc.) cash in - by selling "priority" to competing companies. You pay more, your "stuff" shows up first on a word search. Ever noticed that some "stuff" shows up on your search engine, that is unrelated to your search?
There is a war going on for our attention - and our beliefs - and there are literally 10's of 1000's of entities engaging in this battle. Name any entity you wish, from political, social, or commercial categories, then look for information about them on the web and see what comes up - and look carefully at all the other "stuff" that pops up on your screen. Smart phones are only as smart as the person using them and "information" is only as true as you BELIEVE it to be. For someone who has no idea about a subject already, the "first come, first believed" paradigm is golden.
Nearly everyone has a smart phone now and can acce... (
show quote)
lpnmajor wrote:
Nearly everyone has a smart phone now and can access a bewildering amount of information with a simple click, then, their phones are no help to them, as they must decide for themselves what is true and what isn't. That's a problem, because there are no rules or laws requiring accuracy or t***hfulness for anything offered on the world wide web.
Today on the show "Full Measure", was a report about Wikipedia and it's "user editing" of information. It was revealed that many of the "editors" are paid salaries by various entities - to control content, i.e., information. As a demonstration, one of the contributors added an edit concerning a medical condition that Wikipedia classified as a "delusional condition", refuting that claim, by referring searchers to a Mayo clinic website that classified the malady as a legitimate medical condition. Within 38 minutes, the new edit was deleted by one of the anonymous "editors", who was probably working for a pharmaceutical company.
We are inundated by all kinds of claims every day in every conceivable media format. There are some "t***h in advertising" rules, there are "fact checking" for the wild claims made by political candidates - but the user of internet content must do the fact checking themselves as there are no rules at all. How does one "fact check" on internet content, using the internet? One must check multiple sources, to begin with - and carefully check the source of the material one is reading.
There are multiple websites for c*****e c****e proponents and multiple websites for opponents - each claiming scientific data, theories and "facts", that appear to support their claims. They both cannot be 100% correct, so the user must determine which data set they wish to believe. This phenomena is true for nearly any given subject, but the more controversial a topic is, the more "information" is found available on the web. There is a "first come, first believed" paradigm at work, whereby competition for being "first" to show up on a word search is fierce - and companies that provide search engines ( Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc.) cash in - by selling "priority" to competing companies. You pay more, your "stuff" shows up first on a word search. Ever noticed that some "stuff" shows up on your search engine, that is unrelated to your search?
There is a war going on for our attention - and our beliefs - and there are literally 10's of 1000's of entities engaging in this battle. Name any entity you wish, from political, social, or commercial categories, then look for information about them on the web and see what comes up - and look carefully at all the other "stuff" that pops up on your screen. Smart phones are only as smart as the person using them and "information" is only as true as you BELIEVE it to be. For someone who has no idea about a subject already, the "first come, first believed" paradigm is golden.
Nearly everyone has a smart phone now and can acce... (
show quote)
That's been the perceived and instigated result of all written word, lpn, but ANY "word" that is in disagreement with our Holy Bible, the Word of God, must be quickly dismissed as "earthly" projection. Deception is the current agenda and ideology of the "Marx/Alinsky" regime which has been quietly slithering into our free-market Western civilization and THAT ideology has been trying to throw God off our planet since their anti-Semitic inception, centuries ago. God, has NOTHING in common with Nero, Pilate, Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky, no matter WHAT the latter four have tried to instill or propose!!! God works in mysterious ways. "THE WORD," is our ONLY legitimate source.
jimahrens wrote:
And you will notice every single page has at least 1 popup and 3 to 5 ads. get it through your heads sensationalism is about money. P.T. Barnum "There is a sucker born every minute" quote from Jim Ahrens " A sheep born every Second". Wake up separate their fiction and their agenda's from t***h.You will find 90 % of it is pure rubbish.
Ad blockers work extremely well to rid your browsing of pop ups.
People don't find that something is pure rubbish, they just find support for their own POV, for the most part.
Especially people on the right who believe that the people who have the resources to do investigations are all left influenced, and won't believe any of it.
Come back to this planet.
jelun wrote:
Ad blockers work extremely well to rid your browsing of pop ups.
People don't find that something is pure rubbish, they just find support for their own POV, for the most part.
Especially people on the right who believe that the people who have the resources to do investigations are all left influenced, and won't believe any of it.
jimahrens wrote:
Come back to this planet.
Sorry, I didn't notice your "motto".
It is true in your case, it seems.
WHEN YOU PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS HEN MAYBE YOU SEE THE REAL WORLD WHERE RESPONSIBILITY IS JUST A MEMORY.
jelun wrote:
Sorry, I didn't notice your "motto".
It is true in your case, it seems.
Carol Kelly wrote:
Trust nothing you can't prove. For instance (I'm sorry to mention this), but
Obamas birth certificate comes to mind.
Hummmmmm, Carol, isn't everybody's "Natural Born" Birth Certificate 5 computer generated layers of misinformation???
lpnmajor wrote:
Nearly everyone has a smart phone now and can access a bewildering amount of information with a simple click, then, their phones are no help to them, as they must decide for themselves what is true and what isn't. That's a problem, because there are no rules or laws requiring accuracy or t***hfulness for anything offered on the world wide web.
Today on the show "Full Measure", was a report about Wikipedia and it's "user editing" of information. It was revealed that many of the "editors" are paid salaries by various entities - to control content, i.e., information. As a demonstration, one of the contributors added an edit concerning a medical condition that Wikipedia classified as a "delusional condition", refuting that claim, by referring searchers to a Mayo clinic website that classified the malady as a legitimate medical condition. Within 38 minutes, the new edit was deleted by one of the anonymous "editors", who was probably working for a pharmaceutical company.
We are inundated by all kinds of claims every day in every conceivable media format. There are some "t***h in advertising" rules, there are "fact checking" for the wild claims made by political candidates - but the user of internet content must do the fact checking themselves as there are no rules at all. How does one "fact check" on internet content, using the internet? One must check multiple sources, to begin with - and carefully check the source of the material one is reading.
There are multiple websites for c*****e c****e proponents and multiple websites for opponents - each claiming scientific data, theories and "facts", that appear to support their claims. They both cannot be 100% correct, so the user must determine which data set they wish to believe. This phenomena is true for nearly any given subject, but the more controversial a topic is, the more "information" is found available on the web. There is a "first come, first believed" paradigm at work, whereby competition for being "first" to show up on a word search is fierce - and companies that provide search engines ( Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc.) cash in - by selling "priority" to competing companies. You pay more, your "stuff" shows up first on a word search. Ever noticed that some "stuff" shows up on your search engine, that is unrelated to your search?
There is a war going on for our attention - and our beliefs - and there are literally 10's of 1000's of entities engaging in this battle. Name any entity you wish, from political, social, or commercial categories, then look for information about them on the web and see what comes up - and look carefully at all the other "stuff" that pops up on your screen. Smart phones are only as smart as the person using them and "information" is only as true as you BELIEVE it to be. For someone who has no idea about a subject already, the "first come, first believed" paradigm is golden.
Nearly everyone has a smart phone now and can acce... (
show quote)
I'm not sure I believe any of this.
jimahrens wrote:
WHEN YOU PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS HEN MAYBE YOU SEE THE REAL WORLD WHERE RESPONSIBILITY IS JUST A MEMORY.
As soon as you explain ass hen. ;)
lpnmajor wrote:
Nearly everyone has a smart phone now and can access a bewildering amount of information with a simple click, then, their phones are no help to them, as they must decide for themselves what is true and what isn't. That's a problem, because there are no rules or laws requiring accuracy or t***hfulness for anything offered on the world wide web.
Today on the show "Full Measure", was a report about Wikipedia and it's "user editing" of information. It was revealed that many of the "editors" are paid salaries by various entities - to control content, i.e., information. As a demonstration, one of the contributors added an edit concerning a medical condition that Wikipedia classified as a "delusional condition", refuting that claim, by referring searchers to a Mayo clinic website that classified the malady as a legitimate medical condition. Within 38 minutes, the new edit was deleted by one of the anonymous "editors", who was probably working for a pharmaceutical company.
We are inundated by all kinds of claims every day in every conceivable media format. There are some "t***h in advertising" rules, there are "fact checking" for the wild claims made by political candidates - but the user of internet content must do the fact checking themselves as there are no rules at all. How does one "fact check" on internet content, using the internet? One must check multiple sources, to begin with - and carefully check the source of the material one is reading.
There are multiple websites for c*****e c****e proponents and multiple websites for opponents - each claiming scientific data, theories and "facts", that appear to support their claims. They both cannot be 100% correct, so the user must determine which data set they wish to believe. This phenomena is true for nearly any given subject, but the more controversial a topic is, the more "information" is found available on the web. There is a "first come, first believed" paradigm at work, whereby competition for being "first" to show up on a word search is fierce - and companies that provide search engines ( Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc.) cash in - by selling "priority" to competing companies. You pay more, your "stuff" shows up first on a word search. Ever noticed that some "stuff" shows up on your search engine, that is unrelated to your search?
There is a war going on for our attention - and our beliefs - and there are literally 10's of 1000's of entities engaging in this battle. Name any entity you wish, from political, social, or commercial categories, then look for information about them on the web and see what comes up - and look carefully at all the other "stuff" that pops up on your screen. Smart phones are only as smart as the person using them and "information" is only as true as you BELIEVE it to be. For someone who has no idea about a subject already, the "first come, first believed" paradigm is golden.
Nearly everyone has a smart phone now and can acce... (
show quote)
If we stick to what we know and believe, we're better off than all the googling.
I will always remember when I first learned that history was often rewritten to please the King who was presently on the throne. It's a lesson that remains with you.
So you just admitted your heads up your ass. Right where your pea brain is.
jelun wrote:
As soon as you explain ass hen. ;)
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
