3 ms·

I'm curious, if a bigger publication like say CNN or Washington Post publishes a "false" article, would it be punished/banned, just like a random blog post woul

by mtgx 10y ago

I'm curious, if a bigger publication like say CNN or Washington Post publishes a "false" article, would it be punished/banned, just like a random blog post would? Or would they receive "more weight" because they are "reputable publications"? If so, then this solution would not work either (if we actually care about the truth). Most of the big publications have become propaganda machines for one party or the other, so the "reputable" thing has gone out of the window a long time ago. They should be treated the same way a random blog post would be when it comes to facts. Right now, Google, at least, gives way more ranking power to these "reputable" publications in Google News than it gives random blog posts. So I hope they don't just slightly update the existing algorithm to add the fact-checking thing.

masonic 10y ago
They suffer no consequences at all. For example[0]: "The measure that's sure to evoke the most debate — and which has already done so — is his plan to extend the use of background checks to cover more sales at gun shows. In 2013, after a strong push from the president, the Senate blocked an effort to expand background checks at gun shows." In fact, existing Federal laws for gun shows are exactly the same as for retail stores. What the claim attacks is gun shows themselves, as an event and meeting place ("nurseries of sedition and rebellion," as Charles II referred to coffeehouses). It goes on to seek exactly one legal opinion -- from a prominent gun ownership opponent: "Here's where we are now: A guy who owns a gun store is a dealer and runs a background check. A guy who wants to sell his one rifle to his neighbor isn't a dealer and doesn't have to conduct one." In fact a dealer wouldn't have to do a background check on a rifle anyway, and it's not the individual owner who does a chack anyway when it is necessary (e.g. handgun transfers) -- it's a licensed dealer, accessing the DOJ system. Later: "Gun shows are the embodiment of that loophole. He imitated a carnival barker. "'Minors! People with felony records! Step right up!'" Again, a flat lie decorated with a deliberately inflammatory example -- laws are the same inside or outside of gun shows. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/05/is-obamas-executive-action-on-guns-legal-lets-break-it-down https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/05/is...
DrScump 10y ago
One example is the almost universal prediction that Clinton would win. This (unfortunately) has the effect of suppressing opponent-voter turnout, as too many voters care about being on the "winning" side. This was well-demonstrated in the 1994 election. As news of the Republican sweep (also not widely predicted) spread, Democrat turnout in Western time zones was reduced, favoring downballot GOP candidates. This was so pronounced in California, the GOP actually took the majority in the Assembly (a situation otherwise unheard-of in modern California). District 28 was decided by only 389 votes.

by mtgx 10y ago

masonic 10y ago

They suffer no consequences at all. For example[0]: "The measure that's sure to evoke the most debate — and which has already done so — is his plan to extend the use of background checks to cover more sales at gun shows. In 2013, after a strong push from the president, the Senate blocked an effort to expand background checks at gun shows." In fact, existing Federal laws for gun shows are exactly the same as for retail stores. What the claim attacks is gun shows themselves, as an event and meeting place ("nurseries of sedition and rebellion," as Charles II referred to coffeehouses). It goes on to seek exactly one legal opinion -- from a prominent gun ownership opponent: "Here's where we are now: A guy who owns a gun store is a dealer and runs a background check. A guy who wants to sell his one rifle to his neighbor isn't a dealer and doesn't have to conduct one." In fact a dealer wouldn't have to do a background check on a rifle anyway, and it's not the individual owner who does a chack anyway when it is necessary (e.g. handgun transfers) -- it's a licensed dealer, accessing the DOJ system. Later: "Gun shows are the embodiment of that loophole. He imitated a carnival barker. "'Minors! People with felony records! Step right up!'" Again, a flat lie decorated with a deliberately inflammatory example -- laws are the same inside or outside of gun shows. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/05/is-obamas-executive-action-on-guns-legal-lets-break-it-down https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/05/is...

DrScump 10y ago

One example is the almost universal prediction that Clinton would win. This (unfortunately) has the effect of suppressing opponent-voter turnout, as too many voters care about being on the "winning" side. This was well-demonstrated in the 1994 election. As news of the Republican sweep (also not widely predicted) spread, Democrat turnout in Western time zones was reduced, favoring downballot GOP candidates. This was so pronounced in California, the GOP actually took the majority in the Assembly (a situation otherwise unheard-of in modern California). District 28 was decided by only 389 votes.