[Phoenix]

Or alternatively, should we all refrain from linking to, or otherwise giving attention to, the old media? Also falsely called "Main Stream" (if half the country sided against them, they are not really mainstream).

The only thing that keeps the going, that keeps them sustained and revenue ticking over, is attention.

I submit ever man should make it his duty to ignore the old media as hard as possible. He should deny this enemy all aid -- and their aid is attention.

He should avoid ever linking to them, or reading their articles, or watching their shows. He should be disconnected from them. Whatever he hears about them should come indirect from decentralized media, be it a blog post from Roosh, a periscope by Cernovich, a tweet or tweet-like post from other online personalities you like.

He should use decentralized media whenever he can. He should use GNU-social whenever he can instead of twitter. He should post on his website or a forum instead of facebook. And he should resist the incursion of old media into his life whenever he can.

As for the poll, that's to raise the question: if places like stormfront, or even naughtynomad, are blocked as they aren't considered friends of the forum, should that rule not be applied to oldmedia sites too?

Thoughts?

[The Beast1]

No, but there should be an (((echo))) around them!

[John Michael Kane]

I say no. A man shouldn't be afraid of the truth or the desire to expose falsehood. Occasionally old media writes good content. No point in a blanket ban. Just call the balls and strikes as they are pitched. No need to engage in SJW censorship.

[Phoenix]

^ It's not censorship any more than blocking stormfront is censorship. It's exclusion and distancing.

Their whole job is to fabricate bullshit to get people riled up and thereby boost media consumption. Whenever we get riled up by their latest shit, we submit to them.

We should be disconnected from, and in separate spheres to them. We should call watchers of oldmedia "drones" or "plugged in zombies".

I'm not talking about banning speech about them, but giving support to their products.

[dasher]

We should minimize the amount of clicks and views they get.

The thread starter should give a summary and some choice quotes, and if further reading is required put the article on archive.is and link it from there.

[spokepoker]

No.
Just quote the whole article, and provide a link. If need be, use archive link.
We've been doing this for quite a while now.

Don't let the newbie threads with links/vids and no info misguide you.

[John Michael Kane]

Between adblock and using archive.is, I think that is a good balance between not talking about them at all and negating their influence.

[Latan]

No.
Only leftists ignore what the other side says, in order to live in a safe echo chamber.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(11-23-2016 04:40 AM)Latan Wrote:  

No.
Only leftists ignore what the other side says, in order to live in a safe echo chamber.

^Missing the point. Denying ad revenue is not "living in a bubble".

I think encouraged behaviours are better than a blanket ban. If no ban comes down then I will personally only post links with strikethrough when linking to old-media sites.

Whether people know specifically why or not, it will differentiate normal links obviously enough that people will check the address and make their own decision before clicking on it.

Not that I link to them often, if at all.

Personally I like that the forum has "ways" about it. The learning curve weeds out the lookyLous from the determined posters.

[Valentine]

Automated solutions are more ideal for the intended effect and I agree that all direct linking to the enemy should be banned.

We can still use archive.is links to allow people to reach the article if they so choose, and doing this has several benefits:
1) Ingrains to the forum as a whole that they are fake news and not to be trusted
2) Reduces their page views, which makes it harder for them to sell ad space because they can't prove they have as much reach
3) Gets people in the habit of archiving webpages, which is especially helpful when censorship and post-editing/deleting hoax articles is prolific

[Phoenix]

Most votes are 'no', but no-one on that side has bothered to justify why we should give old-media sites links.

To reiterate: even the naught nomad forum is a blocked URL. Is this more hostile to the cause than CNN?

[ElFlaco]

(11-23-2016 04:40 AM)Latan Wrote:  

No.
Only leftists ignore what the other side says, in order to live in a safe echo chamber.

Agreed. Every general needs to know what the enemy is up to. I read Huffington Post once a month. The headlines, anyway. Keep consumptions levels low to avoid becoming contaminated. TV and movies are probably a greater danger, since their programming is more insidious.

(11-23-2016 05:22 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Personally I like that the forum has "ways" about it. The learning curve weeds out the lookyLous from the determined posters.

Good point.

[rotekz]

We just need to keep promoting the use of archiving websites like https://archive.org/ rather than give the MSM the clicks.

[Valentine]

There is an alternative that would dissuade viewing these websites but wouldn't block access to these links, and it would work on everywhere including RVF. Best part is that most of the work is already done for it and it's being actively developed. If anybody here knows how to extend browser extensions then PM me if you're interested.

[komatiite]

(11-30-2016 01:28 PM)rotekz Wrote:  

We just need to keep promoting the use of archiving websites like https://archive.org/ rather than give the MSM the clicks.

Yeah and if you do end up seeing something interesting on the MSM site just Quote the whole article here. A lot of guys will bold the good sentences too which helps as well. I always try to do that unless it is from a website that I want people to click such as Refugee Resettlement Watch, Conservative Treehouse, Danger and Play etc.

[Foolsgo1d]

Aren't there archive websites which a single user can upload an article too? You can still see the article but they get no clicks from
advertising.

[nomadbrah]

Automatic filtering to add archive.is if in that list would be a great solution.

[Captainstabbin]

No. But, if you're posting about a mainstream article (even to ridicule it), include the relevant text in your post.

[TigerMandingo]

Relevant. Been seeing this on my FB feed lately..

[Cattle Rustler]

No because then you're just like the enemy.

[I DIDN'T KILL MY WIFE]

Outright blocking is just prissy passive-aggressive overkill, creating a safe space hugbox from the mean outside world. We'd be no different from how SJWs behave

However, I understand the intention of not rewarding the old media for their fake news lieing. The forum could parse links and if it detects CNN, MSNBC, NY Times etc. in the URL it might draw attention to it somehow. Highlight it yellow, or preface with a bold "OLD MEDIA:" disclaime before the link, make the link color pink or draw some [[[attention brackets]]] around it. Also, what some forums use is instead of linking to the article itself (and thereby providing them clicks and views), they link to the article through the archive.to webarchive, which is basically a time snapshot and will thus not provide extra views. Bonus advantage: you'll still be able to see the article in its original state if they ever decide to change or delete it to falsify the truth

[JohannesAusPrag]

(11-30-2016 02:17 PM)komatiite Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 01:28 PM)rotekz Wrote:  

We just need to keep promoting the use of archiving websites like https://archive.org/ rather than give the MSM the clicks.

Yeah and if you do end up seeing something interesting on the MSM site just Quote the whole article here. A lot of guys will bold the good sentences too which helps as well. I always try to do that unless it is from a website that I want people to click such as Refugee Resettlement Watch, Conservative Treehouse, Danger and Play etc.

This is the right solution, archive.org and/or quotation.

[Roosh]

Men here are adults, so they can decide themselves whether to click on links here or not, especially since the links aren't concealed.

The more educated a population is, such as this forum, the less rules that will be needed. Otherwise it will be too heavy handed.

[Phoenix]

(12-01-2016 09:48 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Men here are adults, so they can decide themselves whether to click on links here or not, especially since the links aren't concealed.

The more educated a population is, such as this forum, the less rules that will be needed. Otherwise it will be too heavy handed.

But are the hyperlinks at least no-follow?

[AneroidOcean]

(11-23-2016 05:22 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

I think encouraged behaviours are better than a blanket ban. If no ban comes down then I will personally only post links with strikethrough when linking to old-media sites.

I rather like the strike-through if you're going to post an old media link.

(11-23-2016 08:52 AM)Valentine Wrote:  

Automated solutions are more ideal for the intended effect and I agree that all direct linking to the enemy should be banned.

We can still use archive.is links to allow people to reach the article if they so choose, and doing this has several benefits:
1) Ingrains to the forum as a whole that they are fake news and not to be trusted
2) Reduces their page views, which makes it harder for them to sell ad space because they can't prove they have as much reach
3) Gets people in the habit of archiving webpages, which is especially helpful when censorship and post-editing/deleting hoax articles is prolific

We should always source items so that it's harder for people to write things off (and easier for people to research the facts on their own).

The simple fact of the matter is that we already have an article posting guide that could use an update to recommend using Archive links, but otherwise is completely on point. If people follow the article posting guide (especially if it's updated to mention using archive services), all of the above is addressed.