How reputable are the sources and sites?

Just to make it clear that my son hasn't set up any sites himself, but he has friends who have.

I suspect GN is able to remain free through advertising.

There should be a disclaimer somewhere about email addresses and phone numbers. It's not illegal to take them or to sell them if a box hasn't been unticked. The site owner should state what's happening to them. That's why UKIP was fined £50,000. It had bought half a million contact details, but the people concerned hadn't been notified how their emails and phone numbers would be used. Apparently Momentum is in some kind of dispute with the Labour Party because it 'owns' the database with contact details of those who signed up for LP membership - nothing to do with fake news.

Clickbait isn't the worst kind of fake news by any means. Got to go right now, but I'll come back if nobody else has enlightened Ankers.

Sorry if I implied that, Maw

Surely ankers is enlightened by now? There are many sensible replies. In the end it all comes down to using your own common sense.

Implied what Elegran??
I don't think I have contributed much to this thread , and certainly nothing you have said has bothered me

We cannot possibly give you a list of all the unreliable sources Ankers but one to definitely avoid is the Daily Mail because of its "repuatation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication"

file:///C:/Users/Val/Desktop/Daily%20Mail%20-%20Wikipedia.html

M0nica Mon 13-Feb-17 14:08:19


If you wrap your fish and chips in the Guardian make sure not to get a bit of paper in your mouth!

Ankers if you want to read the Daily Mail then read it.

Like any newspaper or media outlet or even GN, you should believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear

And yet again the opening post rests on the sidelines while everyone discusses
soontobe ankers and the focus is yet again on her unfathomable 'naivete'.
When she's had innumerable explanations in words of one syllable and still 'doesn't quite get it' it's time to leave her to do some thinking for herself.
I bought into it for a while but ran out of patience quite some time ago.
Never heard of Hansard. Doesn't know what a précis is. Claimed to have studied A level economics but had never heard of Malthus or Keynes.
Windup? Legpull? Attention-seeking?
Make up your own mind! I have and agree with rigby.

Ankers was exactly the same in her other incarnations. It's a wonder the question mark isn't worn out on her computer or whatever...

Not all newspapers are the same Jalima. Many are biased in their selection of news items and the way they report them, but are still basically honest in the sense that they do check facts and do not invent news.

If I read The Guardian, Telegraph or Times, I am aware that they each have their own political stance and judge for myself how much weight to give their arguments.

The Daily Mail is quite different. Its political agenda seems to totally outweigh any regard for the truth. I would not be inclined to believe anything you read there without checking other sources. That is why it is no longer accepted by Wikipedia as a credible source.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/daily-mail-banned-from-wikipedia_uk_589c3e13e4b07685621810f8

Worth reading the DM then, just for comparison purposes.

OP keeping her head well down? Or oblivious and letting it wash over her?

I can add little other than to reiterate a suggestion I made earlier, namely that no answer was ever really required or would be taken notice of.

Still, it started a lively discussion.

Aaaah. So Ankers is definitely one to ignore...

mcem

'And yet again the opening post rests on the sidelines while everyone discusses
soontobe ankers and the focus is yet again on her unfathomable 'naivete'.
When she's had innumerable explanations in words of one syllable and still 'doesn't quite get it' it's time to leave her to do some thinking for herself.
I bought into it for a while but ran out of patience quite some time ago.'

Why don't you simply choose not to get involved!. It seems that it is yet again not deemed to be bladdy rude to post someone's previous Username. Plenty would be upset if that happened to them I'm sure.

Mawbroon

'OP keeping her head well down? Or oblivious and letting it wash over her?'.

Ankers posted today! How is that keeping her head down?

Maizie D

'Aaaah. So Ankers is definitely one to ignore...'

A lot of posters are one's to ignore but it's bladdy rude to make such a personal comment about another poster.

Ankers is a member of Gransnet and she deserves as much respect as anybody else. If you don't like her style don't get involved, simple but thread after thread she has a certain following who try to belittle her and it is so noticeable at times.

I couldn't disagree more POGs. Ankers IMO has wasted a lot of people's time and goodwill before they caught on to her. The posts of hers that were deleted aimed at DJ were absolutely disgraceful - how is that worthy of respect?

I will probably make about 2 points.

Thanks you for the posts.

Rigby46. If you reread, which I think I said that at the time to a few posters
gransnet deleted the wrong post![check with gransnet]hence why two were deleted[I felt like asking them to reinstate the first one but decided why bother]- it is all there if you reread.
And the second one, again you can check with gransnet, they thanked me for being understanding about why the post needed deletion.
So hardly disgraceful! 4 or 5 wont agree, but who cares?! Same old same old posters.

varian - yes. My original idea was partly to have a thread where dodgy/fake/very biased/ones to avoid sites could be listed or talked about. But I now realise that there are probably way too many to do that.

Ankers, we can hardly re-read what's been deleted. I only saw the second of your posts, which said something along the lines of 'I used to feel sorry for you but I don't now'.

Not exactly offensive stuff, if that was the one you thought should have been deleted!

I do have a couple more questions about things people have posted and talked about on here.
Later I may ask them.

I suspect I am entertainment for some, whether I am or not I just dont care.

I wouldnt mind writing something about fear actually. A long time ago, I decided I was my own worst enemy as regards fear.
So I worked at ways to eliminate it.

I think one of the ways people are most fearful in life, is about what others think about them.

A good place to start about not being bothered about that is on the internet in my opinion.

Recently I was talking to my nearest and dearest about xenophobia. They had never heard of it!
It made me realise and confirm that gransnet is a bubble and very niche.
I went out this afternoon. I looked around me and thought, I bet there would only be a handful of people in this town at most who have even heard of gransnet, let alone posted on it.

So to posters who post, and those who lurk, I say go for it! Post!

Contrary to what it may seem on gransnet at times, there are plenty of posters, the vast vast majority, who will watch your back.

Yes, there are about a dozen posters who may come back at you, but take comfort in that you are amongst many friends on here.

As POGS says, certain posters may have a following. But it really doesnt matter.

I think a lot of people need more courage. It is very useful, courage. My mum says to me, that she wont have to worry when she is in hospital, as she knows that I will speak up for her. Too right I will! Though I will do it nicely.

Whatever gets thrown at you on here, will just make you more and more courageous in my opinion - no bad thing.

There will now be things said about my previous post and this one.
Either way it doesnt matter.

Yes Ana, that was the one.
Sorry, of course you cant read it now.

I thought it was a bit harsh, well actually considerably more than a bit, to say to someone who lost her DH prematurely. And I said so on the thread.
But bottom line - if you thought it should have been deleted why say it in the first place??

I only thought it should have been deleted because she didnt read the post at all correctly, and therefore got upset.
I was understanding about it to gransnet, as once someone does that, getting the wrong end of the stick big time, then best to get it deleted.

Recently I was talking to my nearest and dearest about xenophobia. They had never heard of it
It made me realise and confirm that gransnet is a bubble and very niche

How on earth does the second statement follow on from from the first?
"Xenophobia" is neither a unique or hard word to understand . And how does having a reasonable vocabulary render a site "niche"??
(Although I do remember you complaining a while back in an earlier incarnation that members used words you did not understand. And even thought posts should be dumbed down.)
Sounds too much like inverted intellectual snobbery to me.

The two posts I'm referring to and that I reported, from the Freedom of Speech thread, I cannot believe for one minute that HQ thanked you for being understanding that they were being deleted - they were not deleted by mistake - they were absolutely unacceptable - as was the one MB referred to. I'm just not going to engage with you any further - your posts are of a GFery to end all GFery and I'love just ignore them unless they deserve to be reported which I shall then do.

Worth reading the DM then, just for comparison purposes.

Ana

Is it right, though, to go round telling someone what mainstream newspaper they should avoid, or to advise that, if reading a certain paper bear in mind that you, varian think its sources are unreliable and that such and such a newspaper may be a more reliable source of information. People can take the advice or not as they see fit.
Or to read more than one to get a balance.

If someone tells me not to do something I am immediately tempted to find out ..... is there a link to the DM

Oh, I thought not

I'love - I'll <sigh>

Rigby46 - you are afraid to check with granset to find out the truth!!!