4 ms·

Personally, I am concerned around this new mantra to eliminate fake news. Who are the gatekeepers of said truthfulness. Now I am not arguing that fake news does

by kls 10y ago

Personally, I am concerned around this new mantra to eliminate fake news. Who are the gatekeepers of said truthfulness. Now I am not arguing that fake news does not abound on the Internet but a call to arms for companies to eliminate "Fake" news sounds too close to censorship for my fancy.

mc32 10y ago
The obvious problem is the one created by sites which simply fabricate "news" for clicks. Those should be easy to tamp down because little they do is actual news in any way. It's all fabrication. On the other hand, there is lots of biased media, for good and for ill, but that's not the same as fabricating news and I imagine these will not be the targets for "censorship" among the news platforms. I think the NYT and others in this case are lashing out on seeing their influence wane and not being able to influence their readership with what they believe is the basis for a "righteous" political lifestyle as well as their apparent impotency in shaping political thought.
- ryanx435 10y ago
  this is probably how it will go for the first year or so before the public accepts it: obvious fake news sites are censored. than they will start censoring articles which are maybe just editoralize their content a bit too much in a way that facebook doesn't like. than they will start censoring full sites that they don't agree with. its a slippery slope and they're playing for the long game.
Kurimo 10y ago
Governments censor. Private institutions editorialize. If the NYT chooses not to print an op-ed you send them, it is NOT censorship. If the United States government forces the NYT not to print your op-ed, it IS censorship. See the difference?
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  So what happens when the NYT prints a story that ends up being fabricated, or uses false (or fake) data to support an op-ed? In this brave, new world where "fake news" is filtered out, will the "truthy" organizations be given a free pass? That's my biggest concern. As it stands now, publications often do their best to bury retractions and corrections.
  - mvid 10y ago
    Newspaper that print fake stories will take substantial credibility hits. It is in their best interest not to publish falsehoods.
    - MrZongle2 10y ago
      "Newspaper that print fake stories will take substantial credibility hits." How, exactly? (I realize that you are not personally responsible for implementation, but I think this is an important question) If "filtering" merely means blacklisting/whitelisting domains or organizations, this won't work. And in regard to organizations not publishing falsehoods because it is in their best interest: let's consider Walter Duranty's reporting for the NYT in the 1930s. He won a Pulitzer for that, and that honor was enjoyed by the publication...it further cemented their reputation as the "newspaper of record". It took 30 years before reports of his falsifications started getting traction, and almost 70 before serious calls were made to strip Duranty of the prize. It has yet to be revoked. What lesson did the Times learn from that? Did they suffer any kind of financial penalty? What lesson would they learn from a smack on the hand from Facebook? Would Facebook really ban news from the NYT if the latter had another Duranty, or even another Jayson Blair? What about the Washington Post? The LA Times? Filtering out "fake news" will cut a lot of the obvious crap out: pointless lists, clickbait, "breakthrough diets", secrets "they" don't want you to know about, and celebrity gossip nonsense. I am not convinced that it will stop political propaganda, which is supposedly the whole point of this exercise.
  - petre 10y ago
    It probably became fake news when we stopped buying the NYT in print. Now it's mostly fake news because they give out 10 fake news items per month and expect me and you and everyone else to pay for the "real" news so they can run their news outlet. But then we won't so then they'll just accept money from anyone with an agenda.

by kls 10y ago

mc32 10y ago

The obvious problem is the one created by sites which simply fabricate "news" for clicks. Those should be easy to tamp down because little they do is actual news in any way. It's all fabrication. On the other hand, there is lots of biased media, for good and for ill, but that's not the same as fabricating news and I imagine these will not be the targets for "censorship" among the news platforms. I think the NYT and others in this case are lashing out on seeing their influence wane and not being able to influence their readership with what they believe is the basis for a "righteous" political lifestyle as well as their apparent impotency in shaping political thought.

ryanx435 10y ago
this is probably how it will go for the first year or so before the public accepts it: obvious fake news sites are censored. than they will start censoring articles which are maybe just editoralize their content a bit too much in a way that facebook doesn't like. than they will start censoring full sites that they don't agree with. its a slippery slope and they're playing for the long game.

Kurimo 10y ago

Governments censor. Private institutions editorialize. If the NYT chooses not to print an op-ed you send them, it is NOT censorship. If the United States government forces the NYT not to print your op-ed, it IS censorship. See the difference?

MrZongle2 10y ago
So what happens when the NYT prints a story that ends up being fabricated, or uses false (or fake) data to support an op-ed? In this brave, new world where "fake news" is filtered out, will the "truthy" organizations be given a free pass? That's my biggest concern. As it stands now, publications often do their best to bury retractions and corrections.
- mvid 10y ago
  Newspaper that print fake stories will take substantial credibility hits. It is in their best interest not to publish falsehoods.
  - MrZongle2 10y ago
    "Newspaper that print fake stories will take substantial credibility hits." How, exactly? (I realize that you are not personally responsible for implementation, but I think this is an important question) If "filtering" merely means blacklisting/whitelisting domains or organizations, this won't work. And in regard to organizations not publishing falsehoods because it is in their best interest: let's consider Walter Duranty's reporting for the NYT in the 1930s. He won a Pulitzer for that, and that honor was enjoyed by the publication...it further cemented their reputation as the "newspaper of record". It took 30 years before reports of his falsifications started getting traction, and almost 70 before serious calls were made to strip Duranty of the prize. It has yet to be revoked. What lesson did the Times learn from that? Did they suffer any kind of financial penalty? What lesson would they learn from a smack on the hand from Facebook? Would Facebook really ban news from the NYT if the latter had another Duranty, or even another Jayson Blair? What about the Washington Post? The LA Times? Filtering out "fake news" will cut a lot of the obvious crap out: pointless lists, clickbait, "breakthrough diets", secrets "they" don't want you to know about, and celebrity gossip nonsense. I am not convinced that it will stop political propaganda, which is supposedly the whole point of this exercise.
- petre 10y ago
  It probably became fake news when we stopped buying the NYT in print. Now it's mostly fake news because they give out 10 fake news items per month and expect me and you and everyone else to pay for the "real" news so they can run their news outlet. But then we won't so then they'll just accept money from anyone with an agenda.