A) In this particular case, it was fucking Twitter that was compromised, not a news site. I agree with triggrhappy94 on this one.Twilight_guy said:Yes becuse a major news site getting hacked is not important and does not raise questions of new validity and security no the news story is all about how Fox News is a evil and trying to control the world with its evil stupidity. Thank you you bunch of sheep now go to the corner, put on your tin hats, and pretend like you know everything over in the corner the grown up are busy.
Compromising news sites and feeds seem far more dangerous and deceptive then most attacks. A coordinates strike on major news sources could be disastrous in its power to manipulate the public.
The fact that you just called Twitter a 'major new source' means there are bigger problems with our society than hackers.Twilight_guy said:Compromising news sites and feeds seem far more dangerous and deceptive then most attacks. A coordinates strike on major news sources could be disastrous in its power to manipulate the public.
I didn't call it a major news source. I was talking about a theoretical attack on news sources in general. In addition, I'd actually would like to know what portion of their news people get from twitter. I know for a time people got a surprisingly high portion of their news from parody shows like the Daily Show.mojodamm said:The fact that you just called Twitter a 'major new source' means there are bigger problems with our society than hackers.Twilight_guy said:Compromising news sites and feeds seem far more dangerous and deceptive then most attacks. A coordinates strike on major news sources could be disastrous in its power to manipulate the public.
Edit: Ninja'd.
Oh god, terrible jokes are fantastic.TheIronRuler said:Oh, this made me laugh.
I had no idea that Barak Obama died and came back to life!
Now we just need to get used to a black Messiah.
Twilight_guy said:I didn't call it a major news source. I was talking about a theoretical attack on news sources in general. In addition, I'd actually would like to know what portion of their news people get from twitter. I know for a time people got a surprisingly high portion of their news from parody shows like the Daily Show.mojodamm said:The fact that you just called Twitter a 'major new source' means there are bigger problems with our society than hackers.Twilight_guy said:Compromising news sites and feeds seem far more dangerous and deceptive then most attacks. A coordinates strike on major news sources could be disastrous in its power to manipulate the public.
Edit: Ninja'd.
Aside from that, your notion of legitimacy and authority have clouded your judgement. "Major news source" is entirely defined by where people tend to get news from. It could be anything from Twitter to the local TV news to newspapers to the back of an oatmeal box. I don't know what the major news sources are but don't immediately dismiss Twitter as not being one. Don't conflate your notion of legitimate news sources and major news sources.
Twitter is a major news source. Thank you for unintentionally proving my point.Twilight_guy said:I didn't call it a major news source. I was talking about a theoretical attack on news sources in general. In addition, I'd actually would like to know what portion of their news people get from twitter. I know for a time people got a surprisingly high portion of their news from parody shows like the Daily Show.mojodamm said:The fact that you just called Twitter a 'major new source' means there are bigger problems with our society than hackers.Twilight_guy said:Compromising news sites and feeds seem far more dangerous and deceptive then most attacks. A coordinates strike on major news sources could be disastrous in its power to manipulate the public.
Edit: Ninja'd.
Aside from that, your notion of legitimacy and authority have clouded your judgement. "Major news source" is entirely defined by where people tend to get news from. It could be anything from Twitter to the local TV news to newspapers to the back of an oatmeal box. I don't know what the major news sources are but don't immediately dismiss Twitter as not being one. Don't conflate your notion of legitimate news sources and major news sources.
Earnest Cavalli" post="7.298449.11836367 said:FoxNews.com regrets any distress the false tweets may have created.
Given FOX's audience, I imagine that the false tweets caused far less distress than the tweets that refuted them.
I would,but I'm not enough of a sheep to follow them just to read the comments.Yvl9921 said:Anyone see any fox news follower comments? Those are bound to be hilarious.
It's not about being the opposite party. It's just general stupidity streaming from them.Skullkid4187 said:*insert generic bandwagon about disliking Fox News for them being of opposite party*
I live in the sticks and I don't have cable so BBC World News followed by PBS Newshour is the only non internet based news I've had in years. Its tough to bias world news in 23 and a half minutes, but the newshour seems to balance their ideological leanings by letting pundits scream and holler and talk over one another for the first two or three segments until Hari @ the newsdesk does his bit. I <3 being able to see Marcia Coyle for Supreme Court news and Shields and Brooks on Fridays. But, as with all news outlets, its one part information, one part entertainment, and two parts paying attention to see if there's an ulterior motive (So and so is an 'underwriter' for the newshour, etc.)commasplice said:PBS News. It's about as non-stinkified as it gets. It's pretty boring, though, because it doesn't have freak shows like Tweety and ORLY screaming at you all day.darkknight9 said:Indeed. I dare anyone to find any news source that doesn't misdirect, misrepresent, or obfuscate details to tailor an agenda. Its not that one news orgs poop doesn't stink compared to the others.... its all still a bunch of folks slinging poo.Luykus said:The only thing less funny than all of these hackers are all of the "faux news" jokes.
Ah, I love the smell of pretentiousness in the morning.