Really? Honestly? What’s the point?

2016-11-10-12-27-33“DISCLAIMER: The Resistance may include information from sources that may or may not be reliable and facts that don’t necessarily exist. All articles should be considered satirical and any and all quotes attributed to actual people complete and total baloney.” 

Thus said a website whose story about Lady GaGa being spirited away in a black SUV after screaming wirty durds at Mrs. Trump and throwing something her from across the street.

This particular story got a lot of play on social media as many shared it as gospel truth. Unlike your Citizen Journalist, these social media sharers did not track down the site and find all this other interesting — and very relevant — information, now did they?

***Did you enjoy reading Angela's columns and/or find them helpful? Then buy Angela a cup of coffee when you reach the end of the article. She thanks you for your support.***

No they did not. Here’s more from The Resistance’s site:

theresistancewebsitescreensnip01“We are a group of educated, God-fearing Christian conservative patriots who are tired of Obama’s tyrannical reign and ready to see a strong Republican take the White House. We are sovereign citizens who want our government to keep its nose out of our business. We believe in guns, God and the Constitution and will go to any lengths to take OUR country back from the whiny, politically correct liberal masses.”

 

After all that, I read their privacy policy that totally and 100% conforms to standard, legally required operational procedures for dealing with user information. Law-abiding in this, so they say.

But can I trust the privacy policy since by their very statement in their disclaimer they “quote facts that don’t necessarily exist”? And what about the effect on the truthfulness of the privacy policy when they say they “will go to any lengths to take OUR country back”?

Does “any lengths” include collecting personally identifiable information? We cannot know for certain.

However, I have to ask this one question: Given the fact that the only people who like, retweet, and otherwise share articles from sites like these are the very people who agree with them, what are they accomplishing?

Why, getting eyeballs on advertising, that’s what. Clickbait sites are all they are.

They don’t care about accuracy or truth or effecting the change of anything except their ad revenue from Google and YouTube.

Hey, I’m all about monetizing my content, but this site is simply a panderer of the lowest common denominator, willing to spread absolute lies while looking legitimate and falling back on a CYA disclaimer statement they know will not be seen by 99.9999999% of viewers/readers.

Boo on them. And boo on knee-jerk sharers who are not doing their part in keeping the digital streets clean of trash.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
***Did you enjoy Angela's article? Are you finding her information helpful? Well, then...***
Keep Angela writing. Buy her some coffee.
Thanks for the coffee, y'all.

Comments are closed.

***Did you enjoy reading Angela's columns and/or find them helpful? Then buy Angela a cup of coffee when you reach the end of the article. She thanks you for your support.***