Row 139

Row ID: 139 | Dataset Entry | Axioma AXP Content Repository

Content Data

This page contains data entry 139 from the Axioma AXP content repository. The structured data below represents the complete record for this entry.

Some ideas for you guys to help allay some of the criticism:

Consider:

* Site specific reports, downloadable as PDFs or viewable as individual pages on the PropOrNot site.

* Use a variety of tests.

* Show which tests each site has failed and which tests it has not failed.

* Ask whether the site parallels proven Russian disinformation like Operation Dragon (eg CIA Killed Kennedy) or Operation Infektion (eg CIA made AIDS).

* Does the site present NWO, Jewish Banking, Illuminati conspiracy theories as news or editorial content?

* Does this site present stories about Nostradamus or Baba Vanga as news or editorial content?

* Ask whether the site claims 9/11 was a false flag operation?

* Use key time events to analyze stories from a key time period tied to Russian activity. Eg. the 2013 - 2015 period when they first denied invading Ukraine, then admitted to it. How might these sites have changed their propaganda as the official Kremlin line has changed?

* Discuss the methodology for some tests. eg: Google ... site:sitename.dom ((Trump AND Putin AND Obama) OR (Ukraine AND Syria) OR (ISIS AND Syria) OR (Russia AND Ukraine) OR (Ukraine AND Maidan) OR (Obama AND Muslim)) and see what the headlines for the site read like. These are just examples, and I would reccommend your refine further. Take the first 31 headlines down (eg n>30 rule of large numbers) and qualitatively analyze them as Colin Lokey suggested for ZeroHedge (well before this "unmasking" I found it a very effective Google filter methodology: "By his own account, Lokey was writing as many as fifteen posts a day, among them most of the political pieces. The gig had a certain formula, he told Bloomberg: “Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry= dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft.” For Zero Hedge, Syria was a special obsession, a sign of the essential strength of authoritarian regimes and the weakness of democracies. (“Putin Is Winning the Final Chess Match with Obama,” one Zero Hedge article claimed last fall.)" (source http://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/is-the-alt-right-for-real)

* Use techniques like "web site x rays" to tear sites apart and analyze their content. http://www.jibberjobber.com/blog/2014/01/09/do-deeper-and-x-ray-searches-on-google-to-find-unadvertised-jobs/

* Have some proprietary tests which are hard to game with general methods or tools discussed but still kept somewhat confidential.

* What percentage of the stories on this site are related to any of the above ideas? How does that compare to similar "Main Stream" news sources like CNN, BBC, etc. from a percentage or proportional standpoint?

* Show whether a site has an editor that promotes these ideas.

* Show whether a site has specific authors that promote these ideas.

* Show whether a site is simply dominated by users who talk about these ideas.

* Show where the website gets its money, if possible.

* Show what other sites carry the same stories / backlinks to the site.

* Update these results periodically.

* Only make probability based judgments based on your stated methodology and be sure to put the sites in terms of gradient

* Allow sites an opportunity for redress and be willing to post their official statements.

* Meticulously store the data in ways which makes it easy to feed into statistical analysis tools. It is a pain in the short run but a time saver in the long run.

* Be willing to work with the internet community to modify and change your rating methodology for these sites to continually refine accuracy of the analysis.

* Develop crowdsourcing techniques other users can follow which you can quantify. This will involve them in the site and also show them with their own eyes. The proof is in the pudding.

FieldValue
text Some ideas for you guys to help allay some of the criticism: Consider: * Site specific reports, downloadable as PDFs or viewable as individual pages on the PropOrNot site. * Use a variety of tests. * Show which tests each site has failed and which tests it has not failed. * Ask whether the site parallels proven Russian disinformation like Operation Dragon (eg CIA Killed Kennedy) or Operation Infektion (eg CIA made AIDS). * Does the site present NWO, Jewish Banking, Illuminati conspirac…
label r/propornot
dataType comment
communityName r/PropOrNot
datetime 2016-11-29
username_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lakx6Wk5IODBqMGdzY1NBaVprS0FzSFhKLVByOXdDc3laVnRhN3lZbUNLdWZtXzVfVFRPanpiMDE1bEpkVDUxUTU3R3BYVnVkTU02ZXNCRGRsTC1peEtvR3c9PQ==
url_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9DLTkzVVIxU01pTkx1NnV6aTVPOWJyNHBKc01IMkZLNDBDWV9NWmY1UGU0OVg5YWh1R1hHVmJ4eFlQMUxNczRwY1ExUkgyWW5VQzcxdXFKN1JkWjBMX0FtRmNUdnVudkRUX2dDc19ZWmxwMk15QXVUZ1M0QXJJNzhqNm5vbDE5UjNmTERvQVd4b2lTOU9IM2oyLThSWkxnVmU4ZzY2WmhVVFZBLXh4QzJGS0c4RDVOVTBqYkYwQWd5QUhmUmM2SzltY0NTaTE4eU1NTWpQQWlPNWpvWENUZz09

Raw Record

{
  "text": "Some ideas for you guys to help allay some of the criticism:\n\nConsider:\n\n* Site specific reports, downloadable as PDFs or viewable as individual pages on the PropOrNot site. \n\n*  Use a variety of tests.\n\n*  Show which tests each site has failed and which tests it has not failed. \n\n* Ask whether the site parallels proven Russian disinformation like Operation Dragon (eg CIA Killed Kennedy) or Operation Infektion (eg CIA made AIDS).\n\n* Does the site present NWO, Jewish Banking, Illuminati conspiracy theories as news or editorial content?\n\n* Does this site present stories about Nostradamus or Baba Vanga as news or editorial content?\n\n* Ask whether the site claims 9/11 was a false flag operation?\n\n* Use key time events to analyze stories from a key time period tied to Russian activity. Eg. the 2013 - 2015 period when they first denied invading Ukraine, then admitted to it. How might these sites have changed their propaganda as the official Kremlin line has changed?\n\n* Discuss the methodology for some tests. \neg: Google ... site:sitename.dom ((Trump AND Putin AND Obama) OR (Ukraine AND Syria) OR (ISIS AND Syria) OR (Russia AND Ukraine) OR (Ukraine AND Maidan) OR (Obama AND Muslim)) and see what the headlines for the site read like. These are just examples, and I would reccommend your refine further. Take the first 31 headlines down (eg n>30 rule of large numbers) and qualitatively analyze them as Colin Lokey suggested for ZeroHedge (well before this \"unmasking\" I found it a very effective Google filter methodology:\n\"By his own account, Lokey was writing as many as fifteen posts a day, among them most of the political pieces. The gig had a certain formula, he told Bloomberg: “Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry= dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft.” For Zero Hedge, Syria was a special obsession, a sign of the essential strength of authoritarian regimes and the weakness of democracies. (“Putin Is Winning the Final Chess Match with Obama,” one Zero Hedge article claimed last fall.)\" (source http://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/is-the-alt-right-for-real) \n\n* Use techniques like \"web site x rays\" to tear sites apart and analyze their content. http://www.jibberjobber.com/blog/2014/01/09/do-deeper-and-x-ray-searches-on-google-to-find-unadvertised-jobs/ \n\n* Have some proprietary tests which are hard to game with general methods or tools discussed but still kept somewhat confidential. \n\n* What percentage of the stories on this site are related to any of the above ideas? How does that compare to similar \"Main Stream\" news sources like CNN, BBC, etc. from a percentage or proportional standpoint?\n\n* Show whether a site has an editor that promotes these ideas.\n\n* Show whether a site has specific authors that promote these ideas.\n\n* Show whether a site is simply dominated by users who talk about these ideas.\n\n* Show where the website gets its money, if possible. \n\n* Show what other sites carry the same stories / backlinks to the site.\n\n* Update these results periodically. \n\n* Only make probability based judgments based on your stated methodology and be sure to put the sites in terms of gradient \n\n* Allow sites an opportunity for redress and be willing to post their official statements.\n\n* Meticulously store the data in ways which makes it easy to feed into statistical analysis tools. It is a pain in the short run but a time saver in the long run. \n\n* Be willing to work with the internet community to modify and change your rating methodology for these sites to continually refine accuracy of the analysis. \n\n* Develop crowdsourcing techniques other users can follow which you can quantify. This will involve them in the site and also show them with their own eyes. The proof is in the pudding. ",
  "label": "r/propornot",
  "dataType": "comment",
  "communityName": "r/PropOrNot",
  "datetime": "2016-11-29",
  "username_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lakx6Wk5IODBqMGdzY1NBaVprS0FzSFhKLVByOXdDc3laVnRhN3lZbUNLdWZtXzVfVFRPanpiMDE1bEpkVDUxUTU3R3BYVnVkTU02ZXNCRGRsTC1peEtvR3c9PQ==",
  "url_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9DLTkzVVIxU01pTkx1NnV6aTVPOWJyNHBKc01IMkZLNDBDWV9NWmY1UGU0OVg5YWh1R1hHVmJ4eFlQMUxNczRwY1ExUkgyWW5VQzcxdXFKN1JkWjBMX0FtRmNUdnVudkRUX2dDc19ZWmxwMk15QXVUZ1M0QXJJNzhqNm5vbDE5UjNmTERvQVd4b2lTOU9IM2oyLThSWkxnVmU4ZzY2WmhVVFZBLXh4QzJGS0c4RDVOVTBqYkYwQWd5QUhmUmM2SzltY0NTaTE4eU1NTWpQQWlPNWpvWENUZz09"
}
Explore Dataset Explore Row

Entry Information