Why is info wars considered fake news?

nicethings said:

i don't think arguing about this is going to get anywhere. like, trying to convince these people to change their minds is a lost cause.

Yomiyuki said:

inaction or not enough condemnation of something doesn't mean i whole-heartedly support that thing.
i don't care for infowars. nobody i know or talk to with right-wing views similar to mine takes them seriously, or considers them to be this revered place for factual reporting. i am against rationalwiki, because that's where the topic turned to.
i have told you again and again in this thread how much i don't care for infowars, but you keep insisting that i do just because i'm expressing my dislike for rationalwiki to you.

deg said:


your own argument against RationalWiki opposes you since that source you gave tells they do factual reporting

and the topic is about should InfoWars be considered reliable source by MAL? and even GlobalResearch that is another unreliable source

Yomiyuki said:

my "argument" against rationalwiki is that i personally don't like it for various reasons.
you've seem to have taken that as me thinking they are fake news or that infowars is more factual than them despite nowhere in this thread are there posts of me saying that, and me reiterating to you over and over again that i don't consider them to be highly factual or rationalwiki to be completely false fake news.

Yomiyuki said:

my "argument" against rationalwiki is that i personally don't like it for various reasons.
you've seem to have taken that as me thinking they are fake news or that infowars is more factual than them despite nowhere in this thread are there posts of me saying that, and me reiterating to you over and over again that i don't consider them to be highly factual or rationalwiki to be completely false fake news.

deg said:


dude i asked you to give me reasons why RationalWiki have far left ideologies as you claim and you give that source that says they do factual reporting lol wtf

you even posted a meme pic as though RationalWiki should not be my source to begin with

you are doing a lot of mental gymnastics here just to prevent yourself from being called bias too

Polarc said:


I see no basis for saying rationalwiki is more reliable than Infowars. The former engages in slander of right wing figures on a regular basis. I'll take a guy who entertains some conspiracy theories over slander.

@deg I would say the New York Times and Washington Post are far more 'extremist' than Infowars, in the sense that they support the Assad gas hoax without even allowing time for an investigation, and perpetuate this hysterical Trump/Russia conspiracy with no basis. Both of these things bring us closer to another insane war. Nothing Infowars says does this. They are staunchly anti-war, and always have been, as far as I can tell.

deg said:



slander is illegal right? so why this right wing people do not sue RationalWiki then

and lol InfoWars is more reliable than WashingtonPost and New York Time then huh, thats too ridiculous

Polarc said:


Because those lawsuits cost money and it's usually not worth it. This is why the media can get away with stuff like this most of the time.

If it's ridiculous then refute the reasoning I laid out in that post.

deg said:


news reports are not always right especially if its reported the first time, so what more if its from a unreliable news source like InfoWars?

and if that Assad gas is hoax then Trump government made a huge mistake

and the Trump government have blood samples of the gas attack https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/12/blood-samples-reportedly-show-chemical-weapons-used-in-syria-attack.html

Polarc said:


On what basis is Infowars less reliable than rationalwiki or the New York Times? All you have is your own impressions, and the opinion of a "fact checking site" that may be heavily biased itself.

Yes, chemicals were released at some point in Syria. How about we wait for an investigation to determine who did the attack before we engage in another regime change, huh New York Times and other "reputable" MAL mod approved sources?

deg said:


that problem with your argument is you do not weigh which source is more unreliable

InfoWars constantly do conspiracy theories and that are fake news

i will take less fake reporting than more fake reporting

Polarc said:


That's simply your impression though. You have no basis for saying one is more consistently fake than the other. My impression is that Infowars is more reliable on a day to day basis than the New York Times, while engaging in wild speculations occasionally.

Therefore, since neither of us can definitively say which is more fake, both sources should be allowed here, and the audience can decide for themselves and pick apart any given article if it contains misinformation.

However, just on the basis of the hysteria on unverified "Assad gas attacks" and the baseless Trump/Russia conspiracy, I'd say the New York Times is less reliable, given that Infowars has never pushed fake news nearly as dangerous as the above.

hazarddex said:
Because it is? Alex Jones even admitted to making shit up. This is the same person who "thinks" people are turning frogs gay.

GamerDLM said:
That moment when you unironically cite the pizza shop story that was literally disproven at pretty much every level (including an armed vigilante physically checking the shop himself) and question whether it was fake news. Basically what I'm saying is yes it's fake news, they are not a reputable source, "an interesting twist on events" is as factual as a person writing fanfiction. So to expand that comparison sure fanfiction is an interesting way to look at an event in a series, but that doesn't mean it isn't also total bs in relation to the series.

Polarc said:
@deg It's hard to even respond to this level of unthink.

A lawyer and an ex-wife are not authorities on anything. Lawyers can make misleading statements that don't actually represent their client. However, even if Jones is 'playing a character' sometimes, that doesn't tell us anything about the reliability of information coming from InfoWars.

I think what actually happens is that Jones hams it up and exaggerates his persona, but he believes all of the main points.

NudeBear said:
It's a vlog you uneducated mouth breather. Vloggers, especially those with a reputation for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories, are not reliable sources of information. Also goddammit, stop trying to construct some sort of false equivalency between vloggers like Alex Jones and credible media outlets and journalism.

"if aleiax janez is fake newzz y isn't washngtonzz postzzz too? day hav biaszzes 2"

God shut up.

HarryRambod22 said:
Every time I share an infowars article or video it gets locked or is deleted on this site? Why is that? Are they actually not a reputable news source? Who said info wars is fake news? So your telling me the underground sex ring scandal in the pizza shop was fake news? Also the syrian chemical attack which is a hoax according to info wars and russian news actually happened? Why is BBC considered real news where's their credibility or Fox? Next you're gonna tell me globalresearch.ca is fake news as well.

ArabianLuffy said:
Who the hell watches infowars or even Fox News?

Valaskjalf said:
Actually who the hell still watches TV ?

ArabianLuffy said:

Hah! Indeed!

God bless the Netflix and Crunchyroll.

Botan-Chan45 said:
People who still use analog tvs from the 2000's.

ArabianLuffy said:

With composite cables. Let's not forget those. Those were the darkest ages of poor quality 240p.

Botan-Chan45 said:
I'm also talking about antennas to capture signals for them too.

ArabianLuffy said:

Really? I'm surprised there are people here had their share of experience with ol days of media. I thought they were extincted. I guess I'm not the only one around.

deg said:


what makes InfoWars more factual then?

far right bias sites like InfoWars are extremists calling Sandy Hook mass shooting as fake for example and a lot of people believe it

the fact is InfoWars do more fake reporting than so called reliable news sources

just admit that you are bias against mainstream news media just because it does not align with your Alt-Right views

Polarc said:


That's not the question. The question is what makes the New York Times or CNN more reliable?

Which is more harmful, speculating on the perpetrator of a shooting, or pushing the baseless meme that Assad gasses his own people for no apparent reason, when he is already winning the war against terrorists in his country? You won't answer this: which is more likely to drag us into another war?

You have no basis for saying Infowars does more fake reporting. Learn how to argue instead of just making assertions.

Just admit you have a bias against right wing sources. It doesn't matter what our biases are though. All sources are biased toward a given viewpoint. It's up to the viewer to decide who they listen to. The fact that the MSM and those who support it want to censor alternative voices should tell you something about who is actually more truthful though.

And even Fox News is now censored here. This level of desperation is not a good look.

deg said:
what matters more is which bias is more widely accepted and will help more people (not just a few)

Polarc said:


You've been reduced to "My bias is better."

I think we're done here.

deg said:


ye your own right wing bias does not serve the majority anyway

Polarc said:


Yeah, may as well censor it since it's just a minority viewpoint.

deg said:
>globalresearch.ca is fake news as well

obviously its fake news https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch

even infowars https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alex_Jones

Zelev said:


Rationalwiki is propaganda. See how easy it is?

deg said:


lol freedom of speech for everybody defense again that does not work in a private company like MAL

i just happen to agree with that rule about credible or widely accepted news sources

Polarc said:


If you'd argue that the government shouldn't suppress free speech, why wouldn't you argue the same for a given private company? This is what I call "tactical libertarianism" that the left sometimes engages in. You pretend to care about the liberty of private companies only when they happen to be censoring people on the right.

You agree that MAL is correct about which sources are credible, but you and the MAL mods have zero ability to demonstrate that these sources are more credible. This is why no one except the most conformist, unquestioning of authority people on this site are comfortable with Rule 7.

deg said:


does not matter i only see capitalism as a necessary evil to achieve technological singularity so i do not fully support capitalism like you think i am doing right now

im just pointing out how capitalism works today and its in favor of globalization and liberalism (all for the sake of maximizing profit) that you hate

left wing news sources may not be credible in your view but at least its widely accepted because its for global human unity more and not more tribal divide humans mentality that right wing politics want

Polarc said:


I know you don't support capitalism. That's what I'm saying. You tactically support the liberty of private companies only in this particular case because it results in censorship of your political opponents.

Major corporations tend to be globalist. Small, local businesses are not. I tend to support the latter.

"Widely accepted" doesn't tell you anything about the veracity of information from a given source. Does a lie become the truth if everyone accepts it?

deg said:


im just saying left wing sources bias/side is for a bigger tribe and that is global human unity and i see that as the future as technology progresses more like the internet trying to make us all contact each other like this anyway so why fight the inevitable social change brought by new technology like the internet

its only the right wing side like you alt-right people that wants more tribal mentality anyway and spreading this propaganda that humanity will never coexist in a world scale due to race, sex, age, etc