Jump to content
The Education Forum

The inevitable end result of our last 56 years


Recommended Posts

Florida education officials discuss SAT alternative focused on ‘Western tradition’
MiamI Herald
https://nordot.app/999469652315095040?c=592622757532812385


TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — As Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida Republican leaders explore alternatives to the College Board’s AP classes and tests, top state officials have been meeting with the founder of an education testing company supporters say is focused on the “great classical and Christian tradition.”


Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 18.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Benjamin Cole

    2003

  • Douglas Caddy

    1990

  • W. Niederhut

    1700

  • Steve Thomas

    1562

AI "reporters" spread disinformation about Ohio train derailment

Conspiratorial claims about chemical contamination can be traced back to "reporters" who aren't real.

By Caroline Orr Bueno 02/17/23

https://weaponizedspaces.substack.com/p/ai-reporters-spread-disinformation?utm_campaign=post

“The Ohio train derailment and subsequent chemical release has spawned a flurry of conspiratorial claims about the event being akin to “America’s Chernobyl,” with some users saying the accident has poisoned the water supply over a vast area and warning residents up and down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers that they’re in danger if they drink the water.”

“On Monday, I pointed out the beginning of what looked like a coordinated campaign on Twitter in which users were spreading conspiratorial claims about the Mississippi River being contaminated

“All of these users were sharing the exact same map, which was unrelated to the current incident, and none provided a link or a source for their claims about how the contamination would spread, in what concentration, or how it would pose a danger to human and animal health. Generally, repetitive posting of outdated and out-of-context visuals as seen in these tweets is a sign of possible coordinated activity and/or disinformation campaigns.
 

But the claims in those tweets weren't just thinly sourced — some of them were actually sourced from a website that purports to be a news outlet but is really a disinformation website whose writers are fake people with AI-generated faces. The website using fake writers with AI-generated pictures is called “Eden Reports”. The site was created on Dec. 27, 2022, and is registered with a Lithuanian-based registrar.”

 

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there some form of illegality in titling your corporation as a "NEWS" organization ( on your federal corporate registration filings ) when in fact what you state and present as "news broadcasts" are knowingly false reporting, and even admittedly so by your own employees via documented internet communications both internally and externally?

Does our government Federal Trade Commission have mandates that spell out the definition of "news" and the use of the word in a corporate filing title?

Mandates that if violated require the shutting down of such falsely labeled corporations?

CBS NEWS, ABC NEWS, NBC NEWS.

News can be subjective of course. Inherently, just by a presenter's choice of words in describing the news.

However, when documentation is discovered that proves the presenters and editors of a "NEWS" organization say even they don't believe the news they are reporting is true...substantially so ...what must our government licensing agencies do in addressing these trade mandate violations?

Especially if these violations by such corporations involve a huge percentage of their entire broadcast content and have been going on for years?

My layman common sense suggests the first they should do is revoke the licenses of media broadcast corporations that label themselves as "NEWS" reporting ones. 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

It's, obviously, a hoax.  (See Benjamin Cole, Matt Taibbi, and Joe Rogaine for details. 🤥)

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Well, Ben, you could always ask our Kremlin expert, Jeff Carter.  🤓

Jeff assured us long ago that Manafort had a longstanding working relationship with Konstantin Kilimnik.

But why did Manafort go to such great lengths to lie to Mueller's investigators about his 2016 campaign contacts with GRU agent Kilimnik, which included collusion--sharing polling data about the impending election?

What was Manafort so desperate to hide from Mueller?

The judge vehemently denounced Manafort for lying, before sentencing him to years in prison.

(Of course, Manafort knew that Trump would pardon him for stonewalling Mueller's investigation.)

I can clearly see that you're currently stuck in the MAGA-verse Russiagate-denial echo chamber, and that no contrary evidence will burst your Gerth-ian bubble.

But posting redundant MAGA spam is no substitute for answering the hard questions about the damning evidence.

Russiagate was no hoax.

Are you aware that Trump's longstanding Russian mafia business associate, Felix Sater, bragged in 2015 that Putin was going to put Trump in the White House?

 

I’m sorry, but the longstanding association of Kliminik with Manafort Associates is a material documented fact, not a baseless “assurance”. That you continue to refute basic established information and do so prodigiously throughout numerous threads is an entirely exhausting and ultimately time-wasting procedure. That you continue to impute foreign influence in the expression of documented fact is intellectually barren. Suspicion directed at Klimink was generated by Mueller’s deputy Weissman during a presser in early 2018. Weissman insisted that communication between Klimink and Manafort in the summer of 2016 was entirely unusual and therefore perhaps sinister, despite the two men having been business associates for a decade and likely in communication every single day throughout that time period.

The concept that Klimink is a “GRU agent” is not sourced and is therefore merely an assertion. His background as a key source of information for State Dept officials working from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, as well as his ten years of service with the International Republican Institute in Moscow - part of the secretive and meddling National Endowment for Democracy apparatus - is rarely acknowledged and strongly suggests such claim is, as Rick Gates has said, “ludicrous”.

The concept that “polling data” handed by Manafort to Klimink was used to inform Facebook and Twitter posts which were somehow instrumental in swaying swing state voters to change their preference to Trump is not only ridiculous with even cursory reflection, but has been effectively debunked by all analysis of the posts themselves, most rigorously by the academic study released several weeks ago.

The only reason this story has any legs at all is due to continuing promotion by the mainstream journalists who failed to do their job professionally in the first place, buttressed by an astonishingly credulous rump of partisan true believers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

I’m sorry, but the longstanding association of Kliminik with Manafort Associates is a material documented fact, not a baseless “assurance”. That you continue to refute basic established information and do so prodigiously throughout numerous threads is an entirely exhausting and ultimately time-wasting procedure. That you continue to impute foreign influence in the expression of documented fact is intellectually barren. Suspicion directed at Klimink was generated by Mueller’s deputy Weissman during a presser in early 2018. Weissman insisted that communication between Klimink and Manafort in the summer of 2016 was entirely unusual and therefore perhaps sinister, despite the two men having been business associates for a decade and likely in communication every single day throughout that time period.

The concept that Klimink is a “GRU agent” is not sourced and is therefore merely an assertion. His background as a key source of information for State Dept officials working from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, as well as his ten years of service with the International Republican Institute in Moscow - part of the secretive and meddling National Endowment for Democracy apparatus - is rarely acknowledged and strongly suggests such claim is, as Rick Gates has said, “ludicrous”.

The concept that “polling data” handed by Manafort to Klimink was used to inform Facebook and Twitter posts which were somehow instrumental in swaying swing state voters to change their preference to Trump is not only ridiculous with even cursory reflection, but has been effectively debunked by all analysis of the posts themselves, most rigorously by the academic study released several weeks ago.

The only reason this story has any legs at all is due to continuing promotion by the mainstream journalists who failed to do their job professionally in the first place, buttressed by an astonishingly credulous rump of partisan true believers.

More of your usual pettifoggery, eh, Jeff?

Far from "refuting basic established information," as you imply, I was simply setting the record straight, for Benjamin Cole, about Kilimnik's longstanding working relationship with Paul Manafort in Ukraine (since 2005.)

Ben had expressed skepticism about Manafort's knowledge of Kilimnik, when Manafort was working for the Kremlin in Ukraine.

Thanks for confirming that I was correct.

As for the question of whether Kilimnik is a Russian GRU intelligence agent, the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that he is.  I believe there is still an outstanding FBI warrant for his arrest.

As for Manafort's history of lying to Mueller's investigators about his 2016 campaign contacts with Kilimnik, where did I say that Manafort's polling data was shared with the GRU for the purpose of Russian social media propaganda?

On the contrary, my belief is that Manafort's polling data had more to do with GRU hacking of U.S. voter registration databases, for the purpose of manipulating vote tallies in key swing states.  (See the Intercept article above.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Republican National Committee has put out a proviso that if you want to take part in the National primary debates, you must sign a loyalty pledge first, declaring that you will support the eventual nominee, whoever he or she is.

Donald Trump has already said that he will not blindly commit to supporting the ultimate nominee. He want to see who it is first - so he might not get to appear on the debate stage.

This has also placed several of the other candidates in a bind because they (like John Sununu of New Hampshire) have publicly said that they will not support Donald Trump if he becomes the nominee.

Once again, the Republican National Committee has put their foot in it. January 6th was just "legitimate public discourse", remember?

Go, Ronna McDaniel, go!

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...