[Outcast_Searcher]

If your only references are online sources, you are lost already. This Forum uses as a standard for credibility, "can you provide a verifiable link". That is entirely inadequate when the information is so mutable.

This pliability of the internet has always bothered me. We need objectivity.

I would object slightly, that the standard is generally "can you provide a CREDIBLE link?". For example, doomers are often criticized by non-doomers for acting like a random doomer blog is credible. Credible links will at least come from a credible source, and there should generally get some confirmation from some other credible sources. (You don't see major papers printing National Enquirer stuff as valid news stories).

But of course, if "they" are "in on it", then many key links can be changed, and the data can be gummed up.

OTOH, our understanding of the world changes over time, with science even changing our understanding of some historical events, for example. So just because it is in an old offline source doesn't make it gospel. It's more subtle than that.

Maybe libraries could be a good answer re archives, but whoops -- they're going digital, and digital versions of pretty much everything can be changed, so there's that.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I’m not quick to believe in such claims, that things are being rewritten. HOWEVER last year I came across just such an incident. I went back to reread a Snopes article on Trump that had some info on Bill and Hillarie's rides on the Lolita Express. I found the article but it had been scrubbed of any info on the Clintons. When I first read the article, during the campaign, I backed it up by reading many other sites that carries the same info. When I found Snopes had been altered I did a search for info on the flight logs and found very few mentions remained, and those that did were from radical sites.

So.....much as I hate to admit it.......I suspect you are correct, that they are parsing the online archives. That really sucks.

Here is one site still up.

https://yournews.com/2019/07/08/1082435 ... ivate-jet/

Unfortunately re any single site like Snopes, it's pretty clear there is some bias at times in their outlook, re their stories. So such changes aren't really that surprising, IMO.

And given the vehemence of the political agenda of a large proportion of people, clearly they'll go to long lengths to promote that agenda, so changing references to suit their opinion isn't all that surprising, generally.

And given how the "news" is all about profit now, I wouldn't trust them to be iron clad in maintaining the integrity of their archives if enough green were flashed.

Government entities clearly have their own agendas, including survival, budgets, and on and on. I think the overall problem may be nearly intractable UNLESS you and get a huge majority of people with means to take it seriously. Annnnnnnnnnnnnd, sadly, good luck with that.

[KaiserJeep]

My hypothesis would be that there are no credible online sources. TPTB own the Internet infrastructure just as they own most of everything else. That they can get you to pay them monthly for a feed of BS information is truly astonishing.

To most people, the Internet is a font of entertainment and amusement. Some believe that it is also educational. I have decided that you can use it for education only in comparison to offline sources. I chose the National Geographic because I got it as a gift, replacing two tons of hardcopy magazines. The weakness is that my source only covers some current affairs and ignores the rest. An offline copy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica would be better, but youi cannot buy such. The Britannica sells subscription access only, and brags of it's database of "evolving knowledge". That really took the wind out of my sails, as I would have considered the Britannica a "credible reference" as you put it.

However TPTB occasionally find themselves obligated to revise history. Such as covering the rear end of two new junior oligarchs named Bill and Hilary, who turned two terms in the White House into a personal fortune worth some tens of millions of dollars, and who are politically well connected in one of the two major political parties.

YES, this is happening right under your eyes, and most Forum members will still not believe it. Bill was never a paedophile, they will insist. Hillary was never a crook in quid-pro-quo politics, they will also insist. Just as Robert Byrd was never a KKK official when he was alive. He is again because nobody cares following his death, other then those few whose job it is to obscure online traces of Democrat depravity, bigotry, and criminal activity.

NO, the Republicans are not better. I am certain that both parties have what are best described as criminals as members and as leaders both. I am equally sure that the members of both are for the main part decent, honest, hardworking people. I see no basis to prefer one party over the other when it comes to morals and integrity either. Only those partially or entirely blinded by partisanship would.

[Newfie]

It’s a pretty sad state of affairs.

[Plantagenet]

I was delighted to see that Tulsi Gabbard has called out Kamala Harris for ambushing poor Old White Joe Biden with her race-baiting question about segregationists and school busing. Poor old White Joe has spent the last two weeks apologizing for just about everything he has ever said on the subject for the last 50 years. We all know Joe Biden isn't a racist, but Kamal Harris has totally derailed his candidacy by insinuating he is a racist.

And only Tulsi Gabbard has had the courage amoung all the Ds to call out Kamala Harris on this.

Tulsi isn't going to win the nomination to be president. But once again she has shown that she is one of the very few people in DC who are willing to tell the truth about is going on in the swamp.


Tulsi Gabbard just called out Kamala Harris for her unfair insinuation that Joe Biden is a racist

[KaiserJeep]

It’s a pretty sad state of affairs.

I am kind of curious to understand what you meant by that.

The Internet never has been usable as a source of unbiased or dependable information. The nature of it means that it never can be such. If you choose to use the network as your only source of information, you are choosing to deceive yourself.

I get the impression that many people don't actually understand the nature of a client/server network, and probably would rather not think about the implications when the owners of the servers edit content to serve an agenda of their own.

[Newfie]

KJ,

It was not a comment on the technology but that humans are so invested in hiding from inconvenient truths. We want the echo chamber. We most decidedly do NOT want the naked truth. Naked truth gives us an reaction, we break out in hives and such. LOL

[Tanada]

It’s a pretty sad state of affairs.

I am kind of curious to understand what you meant by that.

The Internet never has been usable as a source of unbiased or dependable information. The nature of it means that it never can be such. If you choose to use the network as your only source of information, you are choosing to deceive yourself.

I get the impression that many people don't actually understand the nature of a client/server network, and probably would rather not think about the implications when the owners of the servers edit content to serve an agenda of their own.

Hang on there! I use the internet to access things like the National Archives catalog in Washington, the Smithsonian articles that interest me, and numerous encyclopedia and online resources for science publications. All of those sources try and keep things as unbiased as possible and accessing the paper versions would do nothing to decrease whatever bias inherently exists in human observations.

Now if you are using Twitter and Facebook and such like social media nodes for information then you are akin to water cooler gossip based on rumor, innuendo and emotional appeals. However because the bulk of our species chooses to use gossip as a 'news source' does not mean only gossip is available for your use.

[KaiserJeep]

Tanada, the unfortunate truth is that one never knows if they have connected to the desired server or to an entirely different one pretending to be the real target. Once connected, you don't know if you got the file desired or a different one that the server was told to deliver to a particular user or group of users.

I'm sure, most of the time - in fact virtually always - you connect where you expect, and get the file you want. But my point is there are no truly trusted sources anywhere. Not on the Internet. Never.

[rockdoc123]

But my point is there are no truly trusted sources anywhere. Not on the Internet. Never.

you can access at the very least the abstract for the vast majority of scientific, social science and medical journal articles published over the past many years on webpages of the peer-reviewed magazines in question. In a number of cases you can actually access the whole article. Are you claiming those are somehow altered? Such a claim is in the realm of conspiracy theories in my opinion.

[KaiserJeep]

No, I only said it is possible to make such alterations. I cannot think of a motive for anyone to change the documents you mentioned. What is being changed now in the Epstein case is archived news articles relating who were his associates when sex crimes were committed. The motive is to avoid investigations by journalists of the other guilty parties.

[careinke]

If your only references are online sources, you are lost already. This Forum uses as a standard for credibility, "can you provide a verifiable link". That is entirely inadequate when the information is so mutable.

This pliability of the internet has always bothered me. We need objectivity.

I would object slightly, that the standard is generally "can you provide a CREDIBLE link?". For example, doomers are often criticized by non-doomers for acting like a random doomer blog is credible. Credible links will at least come from a credible source, and there should generally get some confirmation from some other credible sources. (You don't see major papers printing National Enquirer stuff as valid news stories).

But of course, if "they" are "in on it", then many key links can be changed, and the data can be gummed up.

OTOH, our understanding of the world changes over time, with science even changing our understanding of some historical events, for example. So just because it is in an old offline source doesn't make it gospel. It's more subtle than that.

Maybe libraries could be a good answer re archives, but whoops -- they're going digital, and digital versions of pretty much everything can be changed, so there's that.

Blockchain could be the answer to limiting history revisions, you can add to it, but an unbreakable record exists of all the edits/additions made.

for example Everpedia (still a work in progress):

https://everipedia.org/about

[KaiserJeep]

Sorry to break it to you, but blockchain is a dead end technology. I say this from the perspective of a computer professional with 34 years in the industry. The computing resources needed to confirm blockchains are not compatible with sub-microsecond transaction rates.

In case nobody ever shared this with you, what digital currencies are really all about is paying for illegal substances and services with a secure online currency that is not easily traceable by the law enforcement agencies. This is being done in the furtherence of crime, and not in the name of freedom as the published literature would have you believe. No, they are not one and the same.

As for the accuracy of the information in a repository, the only thing that blockchain tech provides in this application is an assurance that the information downloaded is the same as what was originally created. IOW, that you got the actual original content.

There is no assurance that the original content is correct, complete, or appropriate. I am an amatuer historian with multiple published articles on the late 17th and early 18th century whaling industry. As such I had to learn the reason that a distinction is made between "history" (defined as information 100+ years old) and "current events" (defined as more recent events that still exist in the memories of those that experienced them). WW1 is history, WW2 is current events. History is recorded after a long and scholarly debate and the comparison of as many sources as possible. Even with these criteria, certain areas of the past are not settled - the best example I can think of being the US Civil War. Debate is lively and ongoing, and the history is still unsettled when it comes to those momentous events.

[dissident]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07- ... y-politics

What a freaking nutjob.

Rep Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) “We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice”

The D. Party should rename itself the Communist Party of the USA. If you are not one of the goose-stepping "progressive" SJW new "homo Americanus" (aka "homo Sovieticus") then you are enemy of the "people" (I guess that would be the majority is an enemy of itself).

[lpetrich]

Three more of his targets have responded. All of them are American citizens, and two of them are like AOC, lifelong American citizens.

Rashida Tlaib on Twitter: "Want a response to a lawless & complete failure of a President?
He is the crisis.
His dangerous ideology is the crisis.
He needs to be impeached." / Twitter

Ilhan Omar on Twitter: "Mr. President,
As Members of Congress, the only country we swear an oath to is the United States.
Which is why we are fighting to protect it from the worst, most corrupt and inept president we have ever seen. https://t.co/FBygHa2QTt" / Twitter

Ilhan Omar on Twitter: "You are stoking white nationalism bc you are angry that people like us are serving in Congress and fighting against your hate-filled agenda.
“America's answer to the intolerant man is diversity, the very diversity which our heritage of religious freedom has inspired.” -RFK" / Twitter

Ayanna Pressley on Twitter: "THIS is what racism looks like. WE are what democracy looks like. And we’re not going anywhere. Except back to DC to fight for the families you marginalize and vilify everyday. https://t.co/vYzoxCgN0X" / Twitter

These four women have had some recent squabbles with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but she and them have evidently put those squabbles aside, at least for now.

Nancy Pelosi on Twitter: "I reject @realDonaldTrump’s xenophobic comments meant to divide our nation. Rather than attack Members of Congress, he should work with us for humane immigration policy that reflects American values. Stop the raids - #FamiliesBelongTogether!" / Twitter

Trump under fire for racially-charged tweets against congresswomen - BBC News

[Plantagenet]

...He needs to be impeached.....

For the 100th time the Ds don't have the integrity or the courage to do it.

Cheers!

[Cog]

In one day of Trump tweeting, he has sucessfuly trolled the Democrat leadership into supporting these four communist anti-Semites in their party. It was a thing of beauty to behold, second only to the beauty of watching Trump curb stomp Hillary on election night.

No president has ever used social media as well as Trump. If I were not a fan of a Republic form of government, I'd choose Trump as Emporer. These four enemies of the Republic are going to sweep Trump right back into the White House in 2020.

[lpetrich]

In one day of Trump tweeting, he has sucessfuly trolled the Democrat leadership into supporting these four communist anti-Semites in their party. It was a thing of beauty to behold, second only to the beauty of watching Trump curb stomp Hillary on election night.

I link to some videos of AOC responding. In them, she is a heck of a lot more presidential than the Bigot in Chief. As is her earlier tweeted responses.

Pod Save America on Twitter: ""Weak minds and leaders challenge loyalty to our country in order to avoid challenging and debating the policy." — Rep. @AOC https://t.co/rlSvdWctoV" / Twitter

CBS Evening News on Twitter: "Rep. @AOC (D-NY): "I want to tell children across this country...that no matter what the president says, this country belongs to you, and it belongs to everyone, and today, that notion -- that very notion -- was challenged." https://t.co/7FfSzCLKfr https://t.co/86gjbacWQX" / Twitter

Trump tweets: Trump tells Democratic congresswomen of color to "go back" to their countries; AOC, Pelosi slam president; Some construe comments as "racist" - CBS News

British Prime Minister Theresa May called President Trump's tweets about the group of mostly American-born Democratic congresswomen "completely unacceptable." The prime minister's spokesman said Monday that in May's opinion, "the language used to refer to these women was completely unacceptable."

She's a Tory, a Conservative.

[Cog]

May is an idiot and on her way out of power. These four communists are going to set the Democrat party on fire and I'm breaking out the marshmallows.

Sorry your girl lost.

[lpetrich]

May is an idiot and on her way out of power.

Such dismissiveness.

These four communists are going to set the Democrat party on fire and I'm breaking out the marshmallows.

Maybe if Dwight Eisenhower was a Communist, as the founder of the John Birch Society had apparently believed.

Sorry your girl lost.

As if Hillary Clinton was the liberal Donald Trump. Dream on.