Select Page
About Two Lies and a Truth

Each week we'll be diving into the recess of questionable news pieces online to ascertain how much of it we truly believe. Saddle up that cynicism, sheeple!

I fear we’re drowning in a neck of Fake News paranoia this week, as Facebook can either be torn down by millennialese, or they’re cutting you a cheque. That and the Department of Homeland Security are doing far worse. Welcome.



Direct from the nether regions of the Internet wasteland comes the sparkled brown plinth of pseudo-truth – or, spoken in its native tongue: “fake news”. It’s a journey we’ve resisted undertaking until we could Shanghai a worthy (unpaid) voyager to bring back the most ornate, exotic and off-smelling spices from the far side of the bugle. Yes, we’ve risked extensive malware cancer to deliver pointless snippets of Internet curio, but treat the lack of knowledge below with due respect and trepidation, for their edges are moist with the blood of perished interns – those befallen by the disclaimer that warned them of the mortal shock that lay in wait. What they look like now will indeed blow your mind, as it did theirs, wallpapering the cavernous interiors of the tomb that echoed their last click.

Whether you believe anything below is entirely up to you and your mental dexterity. It’s worth mentioning that we at The Big Smoke take no responsibility for what lies within the box, nor do we trifle with the troll gods or meme lords who created it. We’re simply the vessel. Or carrier. Whichever.


Internet Curio #1: Facebook’s spying of you crumbles at the feet of a lazy acronym.

As the man with the moustache (or his weedy skeletal mate) said, the bigger the lie, the more people believe it. With that being said, if you believe the following, hooley dooley. According to the minds of the internet, the extremely ornate and opaque issue of data ownership can be easily defeated by tween-uttered acronym.

Ironically, the aforesaid acronym that can skewer the breast of the Facebook dragon is one of Zuckerberg’s own creation, representing the inexplicably vulnerable exhaust chute of the Californian Death Star:

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, invented the word BFF. To make sure your account is safe on Facebook, type BFF in a comment. If it appears green, your account is protected. If it does not appear in green, change your password immediately because it will be hacked.

I personally hope he didn’t invent that word, because it’s not a fucking word, but if he did, I suggest we dust off the desk at the Hague.

Moving on, this security check is apparently legitimate (in the same way a condom with a ventilation hole in the tip is), it’s not, but someone took the time to cut a video together, so it’s art now, and all art is true, so consider the obvious bullshit, obvious truth.




Internet Curio #2: Facebook to compensate those harmed by Cambridge Analytica, settles on dollar value to human life.

Speaking of Facebook, in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica hack, word went around the scummy neon-flicked dive bar of the internet that Facebook would be buying a free round for those whose identity they stole. According to numerous articles, the speculative figure was to the tune of $17,500, which, for those of you playing at home, is how much Facebook values your very human life.

The original piece published by an English newspaper, I won’t say which one, but it shares the name of a celestial body that it should be launched into, claimed that it could totally happen, if everyone launched a legal case. Speculation in court is court, right?

The bones of the original piece lie below.

All Facebook Users Could Cash in as much $17,500 Each After Data Breach

If your data was harvested through Facebook you could get £12,500 compensation, according to an expert. The social network has come under fire after it was revealed Cambridge Analytica kept users’ data.

This could cost Facebook £625 billion, which is double the £317b it is worth, law professor Maureen Mapp argued.

‘There are about 50 million users whose data was harvested,’ she told the Sun.

‘Assuming each one of them brought a claim for compensation for distress caused by the data breach … each individual may be awarded £12,500 as damages … But a more likely outcome is that users would receive a maximum of £500 each, according to data protection lawyer David Barda, who works for Slater and Gordon.

He added: ‘The amount of compensation will depend on the level of distress suffered, but Facebook could be facing claims of up to £500 per Facebook user if those users were able to demonstrate their distress.’

So, yes. Facebook will pay us this much if we force them to. If.




Internet Curio #3: Department of Homeland Security set to monitor all journalists, bloggers and media outlets, just because.

Riddle me this. What is the one thing that journalists, troll bloggers and six-year-olds fear the most? Bzzz.

Being put on a naughty list. In a move of questionable merit that immediately bristles the most paranoid hairs upon your person, it seems that your friendly neighbour waterboarding enthusiasts, the Department of Homeland Security are cobbling together a list of journalists, social media influencers and bloggers alike.

I’ll save you the lazy connection between this and Adolf’s mob, but the similarities of the suppressed press…yeah, obvious.

Why? It’s apparently for your own good, and don’t be paranoid. That’s what a paranoid person would do.

Last week, the DHS ostensibly placed a job advert that looked to find someone to “monitor traditional news sources as well as social media, identify any and all media coverage related to the Department of Homeland Security or a particular event. Services shall provide media comparison tools, design and rebranding tools, communication tools, and the ability to identify top media influencers.”

Among the things this database should be able to achieve, is an archive of detailed information on writers, including contact information and past coverage produced by that individual. Per the ad:

For each influencer found, present contact details and any other information that could be relevant, including publications this influencer writes for, and an overview of the previous coverage published by the media influencer.

So, a snitch, essentially. However, this seems, obviously like some of that George Orwell bullshit. But according to an official tweet by the official DHS Press Secretary:



Right. So, why are we not caring about this?


Share via