During Summit, Trump Apologizes To Vietnamese For War

FINALLY!

PLEASE ACCEPT OUR HUMBLE APOLOGIES!

The content of this article and all of the images have been moved down the page so Politifact doesn’t call it “fake news.” Unfortunately, the opinion of the individual “fact-checker” and what they consider to be “funny” is what determines the definition of satire, not the actual definition of satire.

Rather than fight or get all upset and lose our reach because fact-checkers tend to think their little panels make them Gods, I’ve decided to instead re-start the page with a brand new look and an absolute absurdity that the taters will still ignore. Which, of course, will still be my fault somehow.

For now, you can read the letter I got from an editor at Politihacks after appealing an article about Nancy Pelosi going to AA with Mitch McConnell not being funny enough to be satire. You’ll note that he starts by changing the rating to satire, because legally, they know where they actually stand. But then come the threats and the same BS narrative they’ve been selling since one of their “journalists” misreported about me 2 years ago. There have been several major evolutions of the page as well as a massive influx of political liberals, none of which have ever been reported either.

To Politihacks, we’re fake news and everyone we serve a story to believes it. I hope you enjoy the email and response:

__________________________

The email:

Chris,
We are going to change your rating in the Facebook system to satire. I would, however, like to make a few notes for you to consider.
1) This story meets no reasonable definition of satire. What is the joke?
2) As you note, you use Facebook groups to amplify your story. You created and grew those Facebook groups nefariously when you were operating under a series of websites that were not marked as satire. As you have said yourself in the past, you built those Facebook groups to try and trick conservatives into clicking on your stories. As such, you are reaching users through those groups who have the reasonable expectation that your content might be real. When they click, you make money off them.
3) The FB post, which is your primary means of distribution, makes no mention that the story is satire. (See the Borowitz Report).
I want to make all these points clear, because we encourage you to make changes to address them. If you don’t, we will consider your stories as what we believe they are — attempts to make money by tricking the people in the FB groups you’ve created.
Aaron
___________________________________________________

The Response:

Aaron,

That’s excellent. Thank you for changing the rating. I’m sorry I couldn’t reply earlier. I was in New York filming a documentary with Ian Hislop of Private Eye as an expert in satire. I wish I had known beforehand that I don’t qualify. Thank you for clearing that up.

Let me address your numbered concerns.

1.) There doesn’t need to be a joke. You are welcome to define satire however you like, but what you’re describing is called “comedy.” But since you asked, did you read the story? Because…I did again, for good measure. Not only are there jokes, there are jokes in nearly every paragraph. I’m sorry that you don’t see the humor in Mitch McConnell taking Nancy Pelosi to an AA meeting to hear from Philly Joe. I am. However, because you don’t think it’s funny doesn’t mean nobody thinks it’s funny, and if your opinion is what is going to decide what is and isn’t satire, you should probably do some more Googling of “reasonable definitions.”

Now, I do agree that not everything we post has traditional humor, but reasonable definitions also include irony, exaggeration, and ridicule. I’d be happy to point those out to you as well. I’ve screencapped the article and highlighted what — in MY opinion — are absurdities and satirical references, just as a demonstration of how “opinion” works:

I’m particularly fond of the Maxine Waters line that appears for absolutely no reason. I hope this clears up how I could have made such an egregious mistake in not foreseeing the reaction of a random fact-checker I’d never heard of before.

2.) You are incorrect. I purchased my first 100K likes from Facebook, using a generic campaign targeting a particular demographic. The ad was benign and promised nothing. once somebody likes my page, I have a reasonable expectation that they should look around and maybe find out about it. Had they done that, they would have seen that we are here solely to confirm their bias and then ridicule them for it. I understand that you may not like that tactic, but not only is it valid, it is well within Facebook’s TOS. Or maybe you’ve missed the part since 2016 where thousands of pages have gone down for tricking people, some of my troll pages included, and yet the ALLOD network is still there.

Since those initial 100K likes, the network has grown to 5 pages and nearly 500K likes. A huge chunk of those likes are liberals we marketed the page to. Since the more than 10 million hits on articles about us — which make us a known source of satire — the main page has grown by 30K likes. If you actually look at who shares the articles and who reacts, you will find as many laugh reacts as anger or love or like combined. Laugh reacts. Laugh reacts denote “humor” or that a “joke” has been received. Do the conservatives get it? Most do, yes. Most know it’s fiction. As we grow our reach with conservatives diminishes. I expect that trend to continue as fewer groups and pages will share our stuff.

As for money, I absolutely do not care what you or anyone else thinks. I won’t be defending the fact that websites cost money to run or that satire networks take real time and management. The image you’re selling of some guy who wakes up, twirls his mustache and cashes in on fake news is…fake news.

I do OK. Sometimes. I have done very well. I doubt that will keep happening. The thing is, that only matters to you and the rest of the people who believe they are inherently better people than I am. I’m okay with it. Think what you like and publish what you like. Your Gillin hit piece is just lovely. It has nine “facts” wrong and isn’t labeled satire. It is also, apparently, what you used to formulate your opinion of me in the first place.

Basically, not only is number 2 wrong on every. single. level, it is something that I vehemently deny, and I really don’t care how you feel about that. Because at the end of the day, you are a fact-checker. I don’t like being misrepresented or outright accused by someone who ignored the content of an obviously satirical article because it “wasn’t funny” when it was. Yeah, your opinion means nothing to me. We make zero 99 percent of the time. We have real jobs and lives. If something goes viral we call it “The Tater Lottery” and we gloat. Most months the little bit that’s left after costs goes to a troll in the group having a hard time. What you’re selling is defamatory fake news. Knock yourself out.

3.) I count no less than 11 satirical websites on Facebook. Each of them declares themselves satire in their about pages only. Andy Borowitz uses the same featured image frame, because he’s Andy Borowitz and that’s what Andy Borowitz does. Please cite one other instance of a satire page declaring themselves satire so you can see it on a Facebook share. If you find one, please then count the number of disclaimers they have and their positions so I can laugh at them.

The fact that the article comes from a recognized satire publication is in every share. I ONLY promote my posts to my pages. I don’t spam any groups or boost anything with ads.
_______________________________________________

So…In order for you to not call me “fake news,” I have to follow your opinion of what satire means, stop making perfectly legal income (my biggest advertiser is Google, who says I’m in complete compliance) to cover the costs and offer a bonus for successful contributors, and duplicate Andy Borowitz, but nobody else, because you really, really like his disclaimer.

Essentially, my answer to your entire email should simply be, “Go F yourself, I’ll see you in court.” You know what, though? I’m going to use this opportunity instead as a positive learning experience. I’m going to dedicate an entire chapter in my book to how a fact-checker’s threats led to the final incarnation of America’s Last Line of Defense. I’m going to use your ignorance of satire and ridiculous demand that I follow some definition you’ve come up with to build the most absurd version of LLOD ever.

It will be branded and full of fan-fiction. It will have satire and disclaimers as big as the day is long. It will have an entire page dedicated to posting this email and my response, immortalizing forever just how “fact-checking” in America works. First, you determine something isn’t true. Then, you see that the word “satire” appears in the page navigation and category — so that’s twice — before the article.Then, you assume everyone who read and shared it is stupid and ding the guy who wrote it, holding him responsible for that stupidity, because even though there are 14 more disclaimers than anyone else, once again that’s not good enough. There is no chance that the shares, even the ones calling the share funny or laugh reacting, could possibly be because the person thought it was funny or recognized it as satire. We are, in every way, as far as you’re concerned, fake news. Which is fake news. That’s called “irony.”

Once people who don’t like satire or don’t want to read it because they’re conservative see those categories, most bounce. We make zero. My bounce rate would blow your mind. I’m sorry…those are things like “facts” and “statistics” that would have helped you understand what was actually going on, had you or your staff ever responded to my requests that you dump your fake news about me. I would have been happy to share all of it with you. My research and this social experiment have turned me into quite the…oh, that’s right…I already mentioned. BBC and documentaries with people doing satire for 40 years. This was my second with them. The Japanese are coming later this week.

As a matter of fact, the only people who really, really seem to dislike what I do get an awful lot of pageviews — and I would imagine ad clicks — telling stories about it and branding me a monster. Unfortunately, as I’ve noted, they are mostly fake news.

So, my answer to your threats and slanderous accusations is…sure. I’ll comply with every single one of your ridiculous demands. When people continue to like and share our posts and the page continues to prosper, what will you demand next?

I do have to say — I find it interesting that a “fact-checker” has come to all of these conclusions about who my page reaches, who thinks it’s funny, who shares and why without ever diving into the numbers. The numbers I’ve offered. The numbers that tell a story…I have all of that information and yet…you never asked for it. Not once has a fact-checker who dings the page as “false” ever done anything but assume.

Your assumptions are not only wrong, but they’re also defamatory. Don’t worry; I’m not going to sue you, though your email did give my lawyer a good chuckle. He said, “So…the guy from Politifact now defines acceptable satire as what he thinks is funny?” When I said yes, he said… “seriously?” I guess he read some Supreme Court case about it or something.

This whole thing is funny. Not so much haha funny as ironic and…never mind — I don’t want to get into areas like irony and sarcasm that you may not understand, as they are almost never “factual.”

Enjoy the next incarnation of the page. As of now, my offer to be polite and answer questions or divulge my numbers for Politifact is rescinded. You’ve obviously made up your minds anyway. I guarantee you will not get any more emails, letters, or anything from me other than a chapter in my book, scathing reviews of your incompetence, and as much trollery as my army can muster. I hope you enjoy that as well. Appeals won’t be coming from me anymore, either, so have your ducks in a row and put the gloves on next time.

Not for nothing, but you should really send your emails through your legal department first. I’m pretty sure they’d have given this one a good chuckle, too. Tell them “In compliance with Politifact’s rules of what qualifies as funny” is about to be a thing. I’m sure they’ll love that. My fans will.

All the best,

Christopher Blair

Satirist


What’s interesting is, Aaron here seems to think we built things nefariously because the ONE website we had forever we once used for conservative fodder posts they could share, because confirmation bias has always been our focus. They shared but never read, so we abandoned it. For like…months. All it did was cost us money. I’ll do it for free but I’m not paying for it. Memes don’t cost anything. We started placing those and covering the responses at our regular jobs writing for liberal blogs and on our troll pages. It was okay but not quite good enough.

Sorry, bud. That was an early incarnation we tossed out that posted crap and fodder, but not “fake news” or even satire. We didn’t fact-check or care.  “Fake news” wouldn’t be a thing for another year. The “groups” were a single page we used mostly for memes that was disclaimed as run by trolls from the very beginning. Your timeline and how we built what is way off. I’ve been over this a thousand times. Your staff doesn’t care. Snopes was even worse. So…how about you just do your job, I’ll do mine. You hacks should have been off my ass a year ago.

In the end, one thing I have always made sure of is that my Facebook page was transparent. I learned the hard way. So…whatevs.


Before the article begins, you will have to raise your left toe to Jeebus and swear to dogs that you have a full understanding of what Politihacks thinks satire is versus a real-world understanding of who we are and what we do. Thank you for your time, and please…enjoy the clearly labeled satire and/or fan fiction.


During Summit, Trump Apologizes To Vietnamese For War

The province of Roocy Roo, Vietnam was eclectic today as President Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un arrived for their second summit to discuss denuclearization and relations between our two nations.  High hopes and clear skies led the way to President Trump’s opening speech, in which, he issued a solemn apology to the host country for the Vietnam conflict :

“America has a long and storied history with the Vietnamese.  And it’s been, I can’t even tell you.  Great.  Except for that war.  That was terrible, wasn’t it?  Obama democrats there.  Big draft.  I couldn’t make it.  Terrible.  We are very very sorry about it.  Well.  Heh.  We did get a few good things out of it, though.  Little…skinny noodles…that movie with the Sargent yelling…Rambo.  You know.  I mean, it wasn’t all bad, right?”

Awhile back, I dated this girl who made me take her for Vietnamese iced coffee. It was awful. Tasted like tree bark and dog ass. That’s their revenge. Banged her, though.

Vietnamese Prime Minister Phuk Milyfe responded with a solemn bow and offered to have his wife Lingling rub the President’s back with her feet.