Multiple People Dead in Fort Lauderdale Airport Shooting, Sheriff Says

If mass shootings start being a "thing" for latinos like it is for muslims we are in deep shit.

>>97616
this post just added 1 meter to the wall's height

>>97616
Unlikely. He will be "white-hispanic" soon enough.

>>97662
Well he was born in New Jersey

>>97660
The wall would only make sense if people couldn't fly.

>Florida Airport Assailant May Have Heard Voices Urging Violence, Officials Say
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/fort-lauderdale-airport.html
...
>According to officials, the gunman visited the F.B.I. office in Anchorage sometime before the attack and made disturbing remarks that prompted law enforcement to urge him to seek mental health care. While he heard voices in his head, he told the F.B.I. that he was in control and did not intend to hurt anyone.

>It was too early to tell whether he might have been inspired by terrorist groups, including the Islamic State, but the F.B.I. was investigating that possibility, the officials said, adding that he had viewed extremism materials on the internet. He told the F.B.I. that he believed that materials had been put on his computer by a government agency trying to control his mind.
...
>The man was identified as Esteban Santiago, 26, who enlisted in the Army National Guard in San Juan about nine years ago, and served in Iraq for less than a year, military records show. He later transferred to the National Guard in Alaska where he served as a combat engineer until he was discharged for unsatisfactory performance in 2016.

>A Broward County commissioner, Chip LaMarca, said in a Facebook post that the gunman had checked his weapon in his luggage for his flight into Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. The baggage claim area in Terminal 2 is used by Delta Air Lines and Air Canada.

>The man then went into the bathroom, Mr. LaMarca said, and “came out shooting people in baggage claim,” which is outside the secure area. Several reports said the man was on an Air Canada flight, but the airline said it had no record of a passenger by that name on its flights.
...

>>97616
God why did he have to be a latino

Incoming build the wall posts

>>97696
you'd be happier if he was white, is that right?

>>97613
>Esteban Santiago
BUILD

WALL

>>97701

Actually "best" scenario would be east asian, pacific islander, or native american because then you wouldn't have a bunch of cookie-cutter responses already prepared:
>whites bring out idiot liberals complaining about whites and /pol/acks whining about the evil liberals talking shit about whites
>blacks result in "we were, in fact, royalty" posting and general redguard spam
>mexicans result in wall spam
>middle-eastern results in religion of peace spam and more whinging about liberals
>south asian is poop jokes

Anything about the remaining groups don't have any highly popular spam to fill the thread with.

>>97715
Kek

>>97718
Kek, but 100% true.

>>97718
It's best if he's middle eastern or Hispanic because that may lead to better policy changes for America.

How'd that Gun Free Zone work out?

>>97727
Oh so THAT's how the NRA is spinning this one.

Wait, you can't have shampoo but you can have an actual gun on a flight?

>>97730
Heaven forbid people are allowed to defend themselves, right?

>>97740
I believe if you're military you can get clearance to carry a firearm in luggage.

>>97741
People are more than allowed to defend themselves already, Mr. Persecution Complex.

What surprised me is that the suspect wasnt shot. At first kill shouldnt they have shot him? Or at least said put the gun down then shot him after the second person? There are armed tsa agents or whatever there right?

At least they arent trigger happy i guess.

Wew 2017 just started and the US already has a mass shooting. Dis gon b gud

>>97740

The shooting was in the baggage claim area, which is normally not behind the full security check, just the exterior guards. Also I don't think terminals before the actual security check is a gun-free zone (at some point you could carry your gun all the way to the gate, but that was a long time ago), though that may vary state by state, airport to airport.

>>97745

As long as your weapons are secure and declared before hand you can transport them in luggage, but not in carry-ons (for obvious reasons).

>>97748
this was literally my first thought. What a great start to another shitty year. Happy 2017 everyone.

>>97730
>boo hook muh EEBIL NRA
Go back to Rdot

>>97730
>Oh so THAT's how the NRA is spinning this one.
What do Russia and the NRA have in common?

The left both treat them like angry gods, when in reality they do jack shit.

>>97759
>when in reality they do jack shit

this

The reason I'm not a real NRA supporter (though a life member) is because they essentially protect the domestic gun market more than anything else, and while it isn't a conflict of interest in any case (the companies want to sell guns, we want to buy guns), the fact that the NRA doesn't fight stuff like import bans on military surplus grinds plenty of gears.

They're not the hero we deserve, but they're the one we have.

Evidently shooter is former military, likely has PTSD.

>>97662
You can be white and hispanic

>>97765
You can't be white and latino.

>>97662
Just checked. He's now "white" according to FBI records. Fuckin kek

why are people not talking about this anymore?

>>97768
Source?

>>97799
Because it was a muzzie who did it and it's now the norm. Just like how the left has buried the Chicago anti-white, anti-Trump kidnapping story

>>97768
link?

>>97613
They lost his fucking luggage AGAIN. Cut the guy some slack, would ya. You'd do the same thing if you were from Florida.

>>97800
>he was a muzzie
He had a spanish name and military id.

>>97660
What the fuck is a meter?

>>97800

>Just like how the left has buried the Chicago anti-white, anti-Trump kidnapping story
>front page on nearly every major news outlet
>buried

Why are people here pushing this narrative that the Chicago kidnapping is being buried? On the fucking four threads created for it, every thread has at least one poster claiming that it's being buried when even a cursory check of mainstream sites reveal it to be either front page or headliner in the domestic/US section. If it was buried by anything, it was this shooting and the intelligence report on Russian hacking.

Also his religion has not been mentioned in any report yet, but given his hispanic background it is most likely not muslim.

>>97843
Because the situation was out of the media's hands by the time people were learning about it. In case you haven't noticed, instances like the Chicago kidnapping only ever see major coverage when the cat has already scratched its way out of the bag. The Facebook video was going viral and if they didn't cover it they'd look positively terrible. If they had been the gatekeeper instead of the retards posting the video on the internet, nobody would have seen the story outside obscure local media outlets.

I mean, look at the coverage of said kidnapping. "Alleged," all over the place. Anchors and talking heads trying to weasel word the seriousness of the crime away and the sad eventual reality of the same media personalities framing it away from an instance of anti-white hatred to anti-disabled hatred despite the utter insanity of such a cognitively dissonant view.

>>97747
This.

>Officers took Mr. Santiago into custody without firing a shot, and on Friday evening, he was being interviewed by F.B.I. agents and county investigators, as the wounded were being treated at hospitals.

Considering how often these end with the shooter himself being shot (for obvious reasons) I want to know how they did it.

>>97861

He probably emptied his magazine and they got him while he was reloading or scrambling for more ammo.

>>97859

They ALWAYS use "alleged," even if the crime and perpetrator are absurdly obvious, it's just what news organizations do (in case new facts somehow make the old report incorrect). Also viral videos will ALWAYS be faster than mainstream news, because they don't need to fact check. Major news organizations are also typically late to the party for anything that isn't national level news, because usually it takes a while for a story to gather enough steam to be considered relevant to national news and not just local news.

>>97868
That's the point. If the idiots hadn't uploaded it to Facebook for the world to see it wouldn't have been covered because by that point it was beyond the media's control. If it had been their story to break it wouldn't have happened.

>>97872

>If the idiots hadn't uploaded it to Facebook for the world to see it wouldn't have been covered

Stories that have video evidence always get bigger billing than similar stories without it. Big media covers stories on a national level because they got, well, big, and the key part of this story that makes it major news is not the torture, not the racial aspect, or even the politics. This story is national level news because it was on Facebook, so people can see the events for themselves, because you can see some people who have such a loose grasp on morality they think that uploading torture videos is okay. Without those sensationalized aspects, it's not a news story that would reach national level, not because of some "media control" but because it's at the point where people would actually care outside the local area (and more cynically it's a story you can actually sell, because at the end of the day it's a business, and you need to sell TV ads and page views).

The video evidence is also what propelled several other shootings to the national stage with otherwise would be overlooked, particularly police dashcams. And even then, many end up just falling into the pile of forgotten news stories with incredible speed.

Chances are the cops caught him doing near homicidal activities before and arrested him. What normally would put a person away for 10 years is a slap on the wrist if you are a veteran thanks to the VJC (Veteran's Justice Court).

I've seen many times where a Veteran opens fire in public, but then claims "PTSD" for their actions. They usually don't even get a month of jail time.

I'm not hating on veterans, but I think the special court system (VJC) MUST go.

>>97660
>guy shoots up an airport
>"better build a wall you guys, that will keep the planes out of our country!"

>>97868
They say allegedly when referring to criminals because that's the language they use to avoid being sued for libel.

>>97695
>the gunman visited the F.B.I. office in Anchorage sometime before the attack and made disturbing remarks that prompted law enforcement to urge him to seek mental health care. While he heard voices in his head, he told the F.B.I. that he was in control and did not intend to hurt anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

>>97746
>People are more than allowed to defend themselves already, Mr. Persecution Complex.

Concealed carried firearms are illegal in planes and trains, as well as in airports and train stations.

How are people supposed to defend themselves, if they are legally prohibited from carry a gun?

>>97762
>They're not the hero we deserve, but they're the one we have.

If it wasn't for the NRA, we'd be fucked like the British.

> binthatknoife.jpg

>>97917
>the key part of this story that makes it major news is not the torture, not the racial aspect, or even the politics.

You continue to ignore that it is the Internet (that is, the People) driving the news nowadays, not the Mainstream Media corporations.

This is why the Powers That Be are pushing so hard for Internet censorship laws against "hate speech" and "fake news".

For example, when the coup attempt happened in Turkey earlier this year, I and many others on /pol/ were getting literally up-to-the-second details from actual Turks in Turkey. Meanwhile, the Mainstream Media were bumbling about wondering WTF was going on...

The issues of the Chicago hate crime incident on the Internet (i.e. the issues most important to the People) was the torture, racial and political aspects, it's only the Mainstream Media that are trying to derail the Chicago hate crime story into something (anything) else.

>>98137
>wanting any random person to be able to carry a gun on a plane
This is one instance where the ban is prudent.

>>98141
>>wanting any random person to be able to carry a gun on a plane
>This is one instance where the ban is prudent.

Of course, but there ought to be a way for fliers and those visiting airports to transport their legal concealed weapons in a way that they are available upon landing, other then stashed away in a suitcase in the hold of the plane, then going round the baggage pick up.

Related note: a buddy of mine used to regularly fly in from Cali to Michigan with firearms (for hunting and camping) and once when he got off the plane and was picking up his luggage from the carousel, he couldn't find his rifle case and was freaking out, until he noticed a guy who had piled up his own luggage around my buddy's rifle case.

He stomped over there and yanked his rifle case free (scattering the dude's luggage) and the guy just sheepishly look away and said; "oh, I though that was mine"....

Japan had zero deaths for gun violence last year. More guns are not the answer cuck face.

>>98142
>concealed weapons in a way that they are available upon landing

So carry their concealed weapons in the terminal, an area where ID checks are no longer done before boarding the plane? Then it's trivial to say conspire with a friend waiting at the terminal to take their boarding pass -- then you're on a fresh plane with a gun.

If you don't mean getting your weapon at the terminal, then what's your problem? Baggage claim is less than 2-minute walk from the terminal exit at most airports. Are you just the most insecure pussy in the world?

>>98144
>>concealed weapons in a way that they are available upon landing
>So carry their concealed weapons in the terminal

Some other way of transporting a handgun other then unloaded, in a locked gun case, in a locked suitcase, with unloaded magazines and the ammo separate in the locked suitcase.

At best, (depending on where concealed handguns are allowed in the airport) a traveler would have to find his suitcase on the luggage conveyor (hopefully it ain't stolen, a growing crime) and drag it to a bathroom, unlock the suitcase, unlock the gun case, load any magazines and legally conceal the handgun before walking out.

Note: this would all have to be done in a toilet stall, as openly handling of firearms is illegal, as it's no longer concealed.

>>98140
>This is why the Powers That Be are pushing so hard for Internet censorship laws against "hate speech" and "fake news".

Who is? Can you source this?

>For example, when the coup attempt happened in Turkey earlier this year, I and many others on /pol/ were getting literally up-to-the-second details from actual Turks in Turkey. Meanwhile, the Mainstream Media were bumbling about wondering WTF was going on...

Can you appreciate why it might be a problem for journalists to source breaking news details from boards.4chan.org/pol?

>it's only the Mainstream Media that are trying to derail the Chicago hate crime story into something (anything) else.

I'm not certain what you're suggesting happened. The only point of contention I've been aware of has been that CNN reported Chicago police claimed no evident connection between the crime and BLM in response to an infowars article to the contrary. Does that exchange "derail" the original story?

>>98145
>this would all have to be done in a toilet stall

My question still stands: Is a pussy as big as you able to even fit on a toilet bowl? I'm just wondering if when you pee you just have spray 'n pray.... Can you sit down on a toilet without risking getting the whole thing caught in your massive pussy folds?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that being a massive pussy who can't be five minutes in an airport without his loaded gun before twisting his panties can't also have balls. If you do, btw, I should set you up with my cousin-in-law, since he's into that.

>>98140

>You continue to ignore that it is the Internet (that is, the People) driving the news nowadays, not the Mainstream Media corporations.

And you are ignoring that the internet will always be faster than professional journalists, because the internet is not held to any standard of truth or quality. Even when something seems exceedingly obvious, professional news organizations must verify before they air, lest they open themselves up to libel and slander accusations among other things ("no reasonable attempt to verify" is a key part of libel/slander laws). So it's not some grand conspiracy to bury the truth, but slower news groups trying to keep standards and as a result report the news slower.

The real reason there's been a push for "fake news" is because the internet now shits out news stories of varying and sometimes questionable quality. Now the "solution" of censorship is the wrong one, but there's currently a problem with how people consume news. They don't fact check, or if they do, they only check by sources that agree with them. What's needed is a push to educate people to properly vet sources and not believe everything they hear on the internet (you'd think this would be common sense, but apparently people will believe all sorts of stupid shit).

(Continued from >>98153)

>For example, when the coup attempt happened in Turkey earlier this year, I and many others on /pol/ were getting literally up-to-the-second details from actual Turks in Turkey. Meanwhile, the Mainstream Media were bumbling about wondering WTF was going on...

As >>98147 says, professional journalists need to verify claims. The mainstream media isn't trying to cover things up or being forced into news stories, they have to verify events or constantly put "alleged" and "unverified reports" in front of everything. In the few times the jump on something without verification, they get crucified for getting it wrong. This is why they always try to get their own correspondents in places, since by default they assume that their reporters are verified (though of course we have some serious examples in the past few years of reporters abusing this embedded trust).

Also don't act like /pol/ and /news/ are flawless sources, we have plenty of people making exaggerated or totally bullshit claims all the time and attempting to pass them as fact. In the same Turkey events, we had Turks claiming that the entire Turkish Navy was joining the coup, that Erdogan was both dead and alive (Schrodinger's Erdogan), and that it was an American/Russian/Saudi Arabian/Iranian false flag. The /news/ threads were absolute chaos with speculation out the ass and little verifiable information.

>>98148
>Is a pussy as big as you able to even fit on a toilet bowl?

So you can't address the point? In that case, I graciously accept your surrender.

>>98153
> The real reason there's been a push for "fake news" is because the internet now shits out news stories of varying and sometimes questionable quality.

Who gets to decide what constitutes “news of questionable quality”?

You or me?

Yeah, I thought so…

> Now the "solution" of censorship is the wrong one, but there's currently a problem with how people consume news.

How I or anybody else consume their news is none of your concern and sure as shit, not for you to decide.

>>98170

The point is that random sources on the internet are not always 100% truthful. This is not to say that mainstream sources can't be wrong or have bias, but they are liable for it (both legally in terms of lawsuits and financially in terms of credibility) and maintain a much higher accuracy rate at the price of being slow to the punch. You are free to consume news as you want, but you should always keep in mind that some sources are not always accurate, either because they rush to be first they make mistakes (understandable but still improper) or want to create controversy for extra clicks off people who are easy to bait into outrage.

Also I am not advocating to decide for people, but to make sure people are informed and reminded to check their sources and not take things at face value. For all the people who like to be skeptical of big media (and a healthy level of skepticism is always good), they seem to take small media as gospel without giving them the same scrutiny they would mainstream media.

>>97613
u dont see this shit in russia

So I watched this clip TMZ posted of the shooting and I couldn't help but notice that on the right side of the video you can see the reflection of the person recording and they appear to be in some sort of uniform with a sergeants rank and a star above it. The star is probably of the Broward County Sheriffs Department but I haven't seen any of their uniforms that show a rank like that. Not sure what to think of it.

Here's the video https://youtu.be/TC32b8FA_qs

>>98173
> The point is that random sources on the internet are not always 100% truthful

So what? You don’t get to censor what other read or hear because you don’t feel it’s 100% “truthful”, whatever that means.

> Also I am not advocating to decide for people

Except that’s exactly what you are advocating, with your faux hand wringing over the dangers of “fake news” to unwashed peasants like us.

Because the Left are like children; annoyed at their powerlessness, they fantasize of having super powers or magical ability to “make things right”. Except children out grow these fantasies, while Leftist thinking remains stunted and they insist that if only everybody obeyed wise nobles like themselves, the world would somehow become a paradise.

Unfortunately, these attempts result in rivers of blood and generations of pain for humanity…

>>98206

Why do you keep saying I'm pro-censorship? I am perfectly fine with people writing or reading whatever they want. I just think we can do a better job telling people to not be gullible idiots and not think that Trump is literally Hitler and Hillary will literally have you killed in your sleep. We already teach students how to read and how to write; how to analyze, construct, and review ideas. We already teach kids how to cite proper sources, how to do research. We've had PSAs for years on the dangers of smoking or bullying or whatever else they should already know but seem to forget, why can't we throw shit out there to remind people to use these skills? And just like those PSAs, people are free to ignore them and bully the fuck out of people (short of legal harassment).

I agree that setting up censorship is the wrong path, but we can't act like there isn't a problem with the now dividing spheres of American information, one for the right and one for the left. We used to have a common sphere of knowledge (from witch all sides could agree was the truth, even if their interpretation of it was different), and we need to find a way to get these spheres to have a meeting point again like a Venn diagram, so at least both sides have a common point of reference instead of both going wildly into extremism. Maybe then we can actually heal the divide without going off the deep end and trying to wipe each other out (in a figurative sense, I doubt this shit will get literal).

>Unfortunately, these attempts result in rivers of blood and generations of pain for humanity…

We're getting a tad melodramatic here, you're acting exactly like the left you deride who think that Trump's election will literally end America (which is fun to joke about but only a fool thinks this will actually happen).

>>97835
He's still Muslim

>>98247
Got a source on that?

>>98250
Before they took down his Facebook and MySpace pages he had aloha snack bar videos up on it

>>98209
> I am perfectly fine with people writing or reading whatever they want.
> I just think we can do a better job telling people to not be gullible idiots

And what do you think “telling people not to be gullible” entails?

Because there is nothing now preventing anyone from calling bullshit on any comments they read and yet that isn’t enough for the SJWs of the Left, who in fact literally want a “Ministry of Truth” to censor commentary that they don’t like.

This is already the standard operating procedure in Europe and elsewhere. It is only America that guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and that freedom means you may end up reading or hearing stuff you don’t like and if that’s the case, tuff shit for you.

Now you personally may not support censorship, but your and other’s continual complaints about “fake news” or “news of questionable quality” or whatever other bullshit buzzword is being used, means you’re being played for the fool and are acting as a Useful Idiot for those who are demanding across-the-board censorship.

> I agree that setting up censorship is the wrong path, but we can't act like there isn't a problem with the now dividing spheres of American information

Free speech, regardless of the content, is not a “problem”.

> > Unfortunately, these attempts result in rivers of blood and generations of pain for humanity…
>
> We're getting a tad melodramatic here

Once this anti-“fake news” legislation takes affect, it cannot and will not be removed and will only be expanded.

Do you really think this won’t come back and bite YOU on the ass?

>>98356
Not the guy you responded to, but Jesus Christ kid, "fake news" is talking about scammers that make fake news sites like huffpost.com.co or drudgereport.com.co that try to hijack traffic to legitimate news sites.

"Fake news" does NOT mean news that you agree or don't agree with or even biased partisan clickbait news.

Nobody is trying to censor your precious TRS or anywhere else where you can get news and opinion about things that actually happened. It isn't called censoring when it's completely made up BS invented by con artists trying to rip off adsense. Why is this so hard for you to understand the difference?

>>98356

>And what do you think “telling people not to be gullible” entails?

People are free to ignore advice. Like I said, I think you can put up PSA reminders and that's about as far as you can go without going into dangerous territory (both "ministry of truth" of the left and Trumps "loosening of the libel laws" on the right). It's the least intrusive thing I can think of besides doing nothing and hoping the clickbait trends die on their own which (might be the only true solution, since PSAs cost money and are probably wasteful spending if it doesn't produce results).

>Free speech, regardless of the content, is not a “problem”.

Free speech is not the problem, but having two different Americas is. "Fake news" is just a symptom of the wider problem in America, which is the divisiveness that has sprung up over the past decade, causing extremist to gain ground and outlandish stories to gain credence when in previous generations they would have been brushed off as utter bullshit (can you imagine something like secret pizza pedophile rings based on some vague wording in an email being debated in the mainstream 10, let alone 50, years ago?). If we don't have a single point of truth we agree on, then how the fuck are supposed to run this country? This is not to say that we need to be a fucking hive mind (which is again dangerous path shit), but there has to be something to bind the two halves together or else we're on the path to fucking civil war (melodrama, I know, but two irreconcilable views that are getting further and further apart will eventually reach this point).

Fabricated news stories has always been a thing (yellow journalism, etc), it's just that only recently whole swaths (both left and right) of the population have been sucked into it thanks to the division of the country. Healing this divide is the real path to lowering the prevalence of complete bullshit news (not biased, but truly fabricated), but god knows how we're going to do that.

(Continued >>98390)

>Once this anti-“fake news” legislation takes affect, it cannot and will not be removed and will only be expanded.

The fake news legislation isn't going fucking anywhere, it's dead in the cradle just like the term limits for Congress. Also I don't fucking support it, stop trying to pin shit on me. I just think we have a problem now with wild stories being given way more credibility than they're due, which is a combination of a decline in professional journalism (a problem of both trust and economics) and a massive boost in free media (a good thing that has unfortunately led to people isolating themselves from opposing views, allowing themselves to become more extreme as the "center" moves in their direction). There is no easy solution to the former, since the decline of newspapers (which provided the most support for investigative journalism) is irreversible and trust is hard to win back when it is lost (though I personally think people are incredibly hard on the news media, it's just that their advertising format brings out the worst in journalism), and there are no solutions for the latter because any "solution" is actually the death of the internet as we know it (end of network neutrality, censorship, you name it, all of these would "fix" the problem at an atrocious cost to freedom) and thus all totally unacceptable.

Also holy shit have we gone way off-topic, this thread was supposed to be about a shooting in Florida, not a debate about America divided.

>>98374
>Not the guy you responded to, but Jesus Christ kid, "fake news" is talking about scammers that make fake news sites like huffpost.com.co or drudgereport.com.co that try to hijack traffic to legitimate news sites.

Oh, so censorship is ok if it's only a "few" websites, then?

Again; who gets to decide, you or me?

And by the way, I'm 49 years old.

>>98390
> > Free speech, regardless of the content, is not a “problem”.
> Free speech is not the problem, but having two different Americas is.

Americans are free to decide for themselves what America is and they’re free to discuss it with anybody they choose.

You don’t get to censor what I read or who I speak to, because you’ve decided it’s “fake news” and I must be protected from it.

Fuck off to North Korea, if you’re looking for that kinda world.

>>98421
It isn't censorship. Stop conflating removing fake news with censoring real news if you want to be taken seriously.

>>98423
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

>>98442

>You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

It's funny that I write whole paragraphs to try to explain what you summarized in a single sentence.

That's the real heart of the "two Americas" problem: not that people have different opinions, but that their opinions are derived from two entirely different versions of the "truth" which isn't even based on any fact. In the extreme leftist "truth," Trump is a Russian sleeper agent and his supporters are literally killing gays, women, and racial minorities in the streets every day while Steven Bannon goosesteps through the streets burning books and Congress legislates new mandates to pollute the environment as much as possible. In the extreme right-wing "truth," Clinton molests children in a pizzeria basement while trying to wipe out white Christians and Obama is a secret Muslim Jewish Communist Kenyan spawn of Satan. Neither of these things have any basis in reality yet people choose to believe it while calling the opposition useful idiots falling for propaganda.

America used to have a "common sphere" of knowledge from which opinions where derived. Everyone agreed that JFK was assassinated, but people could debate on who killed him. Nowadays people can't even agree that a crime occurred or if anyone is even dead (Julian Assange has been reported dead several times in the past few months). Back then, everyone knew that Germany invaded Poland, but people could debate if it was worth going to war or applying sactions. Today people don't even agree that Russia has troops in Ukraine or that Russian troops annexed Crimea in a blatant false flag.

Now how do we fix this problem? Censorship and broadening up libel laws are both perilous paths best no traveled. In those ways we are stuck wither trying to badger people to check their facts or trying to further enforce existing libel laws, both of which are expensive propositions and open up new Streisand effects and coverup accusations.

>>98441
> Stop confusing censorship with... censorship

Americans have freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of association.

You, Hillary, PolitiFact, whoever does NOT have the right to restrict that.

How is possibile that you don't understand this?

>>98470
LOL, all the dead are fat, old white people who thought they were going on a cruise...good riddance to that white trash

>>98480
BLM, SJWcuck CTR Whiteboi shill, climb back into your oven and await the release of the gas.

>>98470
Tinfoilfags gonna tinfoil. You are a prime example.

>>98441
The problem is, doing one is going to lead to the other. Removing blatantly fake news is going to lead to censorship of unpopular or contrary opinions. We've already seen people pushing apps on Github where the bullshit peddlers are put on lists next to "I don't like it," sources run by people the devs just simply don't like.

If you establish the power to curate fake news from real you've given someone the power to decide which is which. I guarantee you, based on every observable pattern from the past few decades when it comes to expanding power, it will not end there. It never does. Giving someone the power to decide fake from real will not end at obvious bullshit.

>>99322
The sites on that wikipedia list of fake news sites are run by literal scammers, not journalists. There is a big difference between ddrudgereport.com.co and drudgereport.com.

There has to be a distinction made for the sake of factual reporting. Even biased news is still fact, while fake news is not.

>>99323
I was referring to an app that made its way through /g/ and then here hosted on Github where sites exactly like that scammer site you just mentioned were on a list with others like the DailyCaller despite the latter simply being an example of strong bias.

The fact "fake news," is such a contentious and misunderstood argument in the first place bodes nothing but horror in the future should someone try to use power to police it.

>>99326
>The fact "fake news," is such a contentious and misunderstood argument in the first place bodes nothing but horror in the future should someone try to use power to police it.
Not going to disagree with this. I'll only add that the distinctive line between real and fake news is being purposely confused by all kinds of people for various selfish reasons. It isn't even a partisan political issue but it has become one through seeing 'fake news' used as an argument in political speeches.

>>99331
Not just in speeches, but in everyday parlance. People on both sides were and still are happy to label media they simply disagree with as "fake news," to the point where whatever original definition it might have had is more or less just another interpretation. And to be quite honest, more than a few people helped cultivate that confusion for their own interests, whether it be the undermining of comparatively left-leaning mainstream outlets or the delegitimization of burgeoning right-leaning alternative media.

>>97747
It's bad form to kill your own assassins.