Hosts: Bwahaha blocks all conservative and russian news as fakenews

[Biorazero]

0.0.0.0 ruptly.tv
0.0.0.0 www.infowars.com
0.0.0.0 www.naturalnews.com
0.0.0.0 www.prisonplanet.com
0.0.0.0 www.rt.com
0.0.0.0 www.wnd.com
0.0.0.0 www.zerohedge.com

what a loser

[welcome[bot]]

Hello! Thank you for opening your first issue in this repo. It’s people like you who make these host files better!

[Biorazero]

Don't you think you should let your users know that the context of fakenews you're using is coming from a heavily biased viewpoint. If you only added clickbait sites such as yournewswire.com (created by a disgruntled and backstabbing ex-webmaster of davidicke.com "Sean Adl-Tabatabai") and various fake UFO sites and others to the list it would have been different, but you added mainline ones like wnd and zerohedge, you're out of your effing mind.

What about this hosts file:

0.0.0.0 stevenblack.com

[Biorazero]

Is your so called "reputable source" snopes.com for example, a couple with a cat in a dorm room. These two people are now going to decide what can or cannot be on the internet. Yeah right.

EDIT: By the way, I was one told by wikipedia people that the only thing that matters to them is what they see as "reputable 3rd party source" and that it doesn't matter if it's true or not, as long as some "reputable source" reports about it, which means that if these "reputable sources" choose to not report on it, it's not going to be citable in wikipedia.

So if a star blows up in another galaxy, and nobody but a few farmers in a neighbouring solar system see it, but here on Earth no "reputable 3rd party source" reports about it, according to wikipedia it's not true! It didn't happen!

[dnmTX]

NOTHING TO SEE FOLKS......JUST ANOTHER "CEO" BLOWING UP STEAM
EDIT: trololol

[Biorazero]

Allright, I may have been too quick to blame the repo owner, it's a consolidation from other curators, I apologize. But still, he seems to agree with it and going along with it so far.

EDIT: There are real clickbait and fake sites which are piggybacking on the conservative bandwagon that should deserve to be on such a list, but not half of those on it right now, I mean, rt.com, that's like the blank-check banning a whole continent, here you go Antarctica, ban the all the ice. That's probably why Titanic sank, someone erased Greenland from the map, because the ice from it caused X amount too much of deaths per year.

[raziel-]

@Biorazero
You can whitelist anything, or you can completely skip Fakenews

[funilrys]

May I ask what is the real object behind this issue?

If you want to blame, ask a question or report an issue regarding the fake news extension please report to https://github.com/marktron/fakenews/issues.

@StevenBlack please close as this issue should be handled by @marktron.

[Biorazero]

@funilrys Yeah, I just couldn't get to it in the moment, fakenews has been going on since forever, and it just happens to be a big realization right now, however some are being falsely labeled while others that were fake all these years aren't given enough attention.

For example, there are a lot of youtube channels which literally make money off fake CGI-generated UFOs that don't exist, including taking official video from NASA ISS Livestream and modifying it making it look like that NASA "cut the feed" and inserting objects into the video that weren't seen in the actual livestream, such behavior discredits all the cases where there is a real genuine UFO or something.

So, are you going to ban youtube.com just because a few channels post fake UFOs - so if youtube.com isn't getting banned, why do other sites deserve this? Right now rt.com is being banned just because there's a few articles that are ofcourse defending the country they originate from, aren't US sites defending their origin too? So it does not seem fair to blank-check ban a whole site, which has various content, and does a lot of other things that are non-political. I am aware that hosts can only block a whole domain and not specific pages, so it should be used with care.

Infact, because I picked rt.com for this example, I'll tell you the downsides openly so you can see I'm not defending it either, rt.com has infact reported on these various fake-UFOs as news noumerous times in their "viral" section, I am not amused by this, I'm not defending rt.com at all, infact many news sites were duped, because they don't have the necessary experience to spot CGI, yes including a now ex-reporter (Joe Biggs) from infowars.com was duped by this but thankfully after a lot of commenters were screaming they have issued a correction 2 days later.

I apologize for a little bit of attitude, might have not been the most optimal place, I made my point, I'll make it easier and close it myself.