5 ms·

In corporate speak "misinformation" is defined as "any information that doesn't support our narrative". Certainly it is the goal of Facebook, the government, a

In corporate speak "misinformation" is defined as "any information that doesn't support our narrative". Certainly it is the goal of Facebook, the government, and every other large media corporation to control the flow of information. You need look no farther then Obama's recent statement that news needs to be "curated" by government appointed gatekeepers, to filter out all that pesky information that doesn't jive with government propaganda.

nickodell 10y ago
Do you mind linking to where Obama said that? The closest I can find is this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-decries-wild-west-media-landscape-214642552.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-decries-wild-west-media-lan... >"We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to," Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh. Why do you think that the curation is going to be done by the government or by government appointed gatekeepers?
- marknutter 10y ago
  It's implied by the use of the word "we" and the fact that he is a government employee.
  - rat87 10y ago
    > It's implied by the use of the word "we" and the fact that he is a government employee. I think it's clear that's he's asking for a rebuilt mainstream media so that people can at agree on facts.
  - nickodell 10y ago
    I can see that interpretation, but I don't think that's what he meant. To me, he's saying that those platforms should develop their own systems in a way that's acceptable to them.
seertaak 10y ago
Same noises coming from Europe -- today, it was Schäuble proffering this "lesson" from the US election. The degree to which the news in this country is censored or distorted is frankly maddening, and to my mind, ultimately self-defeating. For example, until half a year ago, important details in articles about terrorism were left out, but you could still sort of fill in the blanks yourself. Now, every single article about an incident has the same stock phrase: "Hintergrund und Motiv der Tat sind noch völlig unklar", and nothing else. The elision of all details is supported by the flimsiest of justifications, namely that the terrorists relish and are spurned by the media attention (as if their religious fanaticism doesn't play the major role). There is, of course, not a shred of evidence for this contention, except for the opinion of a handful of "experts". It seems to me that a terrorist attack is newsworthy. That newspapers refuse to report details (say, by interviewing a witness) is an awful abrogation of their duty. Sometimes reading the news here feels like living in Soviet Russia.
hiou 10y ago
> Obama's recent statement that news needs to be "curated" by government appointed gatekeepers Facebook is leaking, I can already imagine what the clickbait headline looked like... "Obama to assemble government censorship agency"
rayvd 10y ago
Yes. Tread lightly here. If you designate some power to determine what's good information and what's bad, you're headed down a pretty slippery slope. Note: I really don't have an issue with Facebook doing this if they want. They're a company after all, not the government. I can just choose to get the information they deem 'bad' elsewhere.
- std_throwaway 10y ago
  I do object. They may be a private entity but they control a humongous amount of information flow which puts them in a very public position. We may argue where to draw the line but this extreme consolidation of user attention to a few gatekeepers is a problem for the public and needs to be dealt with by the public.
std_throwaway 10y ago
In order to be acceptable to the general public you need to represent a wide array of contradicting opinions. If your propaganda is too bland it will be rejected in increasing numbers and turning up the volume then will only make people close their ears. I don't think it is easy to run such a system but I do think it works pretty well most of the time.
dmode 10y ago
Please point to the Obama quote on government appointed gatekeepers.
- DrScump 10y ago
  Here's one relevant monologue: "We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to," Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh. "There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don't have any basis in anything that's actually happening in the world" Obama in Pittsburgh PA 10/13/2016
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    ...and where did this quote come from?
    - masonic 10y ago
      Have you heard of this newfangled thing called a "search engine"? https://duckduckgo.com/?q="We+are+going+to+have+to+rebuild+within+this+wild-wild-west-of-information&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q="We+are+going+to+have+to+rebuild+w...
      - danieltillett 10y ago
        The OP asked for a source. I think that is fairly reasonable.
  - dmode 10y ago
    I don't see anywhere he says that there will be government appointed gate keepers
    - DrScump 10y ago
      Obama saying "we" is not referring to his administration? What do you think "we" refers to?

nickodell 10y ago

Do you mind linking to where Obama said that? The closest I can find is this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-decries-wild-west-media-landscape-214642552.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-decries-wild-west-media-lan... >"We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to," Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh. Why do you think that the curation is going to be done by the government or by government appointed gatekeepers?

marknutter 10y ago
It's implied by the use of the word "we" and the fact that he is a government employee.
- rat87 10y ago
  > It's implied by the use of the word "we" and the fact that he is a government employee. I think it's clear that's he's asking for a rebuilt mainstream media so that people can at agree on facts.
- nickodell 10y ago
  I can see that interpretation, but I don't think that's what he meant. To me, he's saying that those platforms should develop their own systems in a way that's acceptable to them.

seertaak 10y ago

Same noises coming from Europe -- today, it was Schäuble proffering this "lesson" from the US election. The degree to which the news in this country is censored or distorted is frankly maddening, and to my mind, ultimately self-defeating. For example, until half a year ago, important details in articles about terrorism were left out, but you could still sort of fill in the blanks yourself. Now, every single article about an incident has the same stock phrase: "Hintergrund und Motiv der Tat sind noch völlig unklar", and nothing else. The elision of all details is supported by the flimsiest of justifications, namely that the terrorists relish and are spurned by the media attention (as if their religious fanaticism doesn't play the major role). There is, of course, not a shred of evidence for this contention, except for the opinion of a handful of "experts". It seems to me that a terrorist attack is newsworthy. That newspapers refuse to report details (say, by interviewing a witness) is an awful abrogation of their duty. Sometimes reading the news here feels like living in Soviet Russia.

hiou 10y ago

> Obama's recent statement that news needs to be "curated" by government appointed gatekeepers Facebook is leaking, I can already imagine what the clickbait headline looked like... "Obama to assemble government censorship agency"

rayvd 10y ago

Yes. Tread lightly here. If you designate some power to determine what's good information and what's bad, you're headed down a pretty slippery slope. Note: I really don't have an issue with Facebook doing this if they want. They're a company after all, not the government. I can just choose to get the information they deem 'bad' elsewhere.

std_throwaway 10y ago
I do object. They may be a private entity but they control a humongous amount of information flow which puts them in a very public position. We may argue where to draw the line but this extreme consolidation of user attention to a few gatekeepers is a problem for the public and needs to be dealt with by the public.

std_throwaway 10y ago

In order to be acceptable to the general public you need to represent a wide array of contradicting opinions. If your propaganda is too bland it will be rejected in increasing numbers and turning up the volume then will only make people close their ears. I don't think it is easy to run such a system but I do think it works pretty well most of the time.

dmode 10y ago

Please point to the Obama quote on government appointed gatekeepers.

DrScump 10y ago
Here's one relevant monologue: "We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to," Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh. "There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don't have any basis in anything that's actually happening in the world" Obama in Pittsburgh PA 10/13/2016
- danieltillett 10y ago
  ...and where did this quote come from?
  - masonic 10y ago
    Have you heard of this newfangled thing called a "search engine"? https://duckduckgo.com/?q="We+are+going+to+have+to+rebuild+within+this+wild-wild-west-of-information&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q="We+are+going+to+have+to+rebuild+w...
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      The OP asked for a source. I think that is fairly reasonable.
- dmode 10y ago
  I don't see anywhere he says that there will be government appointed gate keepers
  - DrScump 10y ago
    Obama saying "we" is not referring to his administration? What do you think "we" refers to?