4 ms·

I think the point being made is that Facebook, NYT, et al. are not in a position to moralise about journalistic ethics. I would go further and say that the hal

by cthor 10y ago

I think the point being made is that Facebook, NYT, et al. are not in a position to moralise about journalistic ethics. I would go further and say that the half-truths being peddled by these outlets are far more dangerous than obvious non-truths peddled by "fake news" outlets, because seeing through their lies is much harder. If we live in a world where "fake news" has been successfully censored, but the merely partisan outlets remain, the only result is people being lulled into a false sense of security: "It has to be true -- fake news is banned!"

karmelapple 10y ago
I'd argue it's not worse. I've ran across many people with higher ed degrees sharing fake news, sincerely thinking they have shared a reasonably-researched article. I'm talking news from a website which says it publishes stories that are not true - but are not humor - on its about page. When that fake news reinforces their perspective, they simply clicked share because they liked how it sounds. Every time when I've pointed out something was blatantly false, they also sincerely said thank you, including one person admitting they couldn't tell the difference between a reasonably-researched news site and one that is not.
EarthIsHome 10y ago
> these outlets are far more dangerous than obvious non-truths peddled by "fake news" outlets While apparently obvious to us, fake news articles are being shared by more people than factual news. [0][1] > If we live in a world where "fake news" has been successfully censored There's a difference between fake news and partisan news: one is flat out lies the other is factually true. Fake news is more akin to false advertising than censorship is. No one says that banning false advertising is censorship; banning false advertising is keeping people from buying products based on lies. [0]: https://imgur.com/xJ7eDbs https://imgur.com/xJ7eDbs [1]: https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-...
- tomp 10y ago
  I'm not sure we can use "number of shares" as a reliable metrics for how many people believe each piece of news. It's perfectly concievable that many people share it as "look at this obviously fake lie". I mean, how many shares do Onion articles get?
  - EarthIsHome 10y ago
    It's a reliable metric in describing the possible reach of fake news. There will be a sizeable portion who believe what they read. This is straight up fiction being spread masquerading as truth, which should deeply trouble everyone who cares about what is correct and what is not. Speaking anecdotally, I nor my friends would share news we believed was fake. Would you share the fake source knowing it is fake news or would you share links exposing and explaining a fake news article? > I mean, how many shares do Onion articles get? Go take a gander at The Onion's Facebook page and scroll trying to find a fake article that has more than 10,000 shares.

by cthor 10y ago

karmelapple 10y ago

I'd argue it's not worse. I've ran across many people with higher ed degrees sharing fake news, sincerely thinking they have shared a reasonably-researched article. I'm talking news from a website which says it publishes stories that are not true - but are not humor - on its about page. When that fake news reinforces their perspective, they simply clicked share because they liked how it sounds. Every time when I've pointed out something was blatantly false, they also sincerely said thank you, including one person admitting they couldn't tell the difference between a reasonably-researched news site and one that is not.

EarthIsHome 10y ago

> these outlets are far more dangerous than obvious non-truths peddled by "fake news" outlets While apparently obvious to us, fake news articles are being shared by more people than factual news. [0][1] > If we live in a world where "fake news" has been successfully censored There's a difference between fake news and partisan news: one is flat out lies the other is factually true. Fake news is more akin to false advertising than censorship is. No one says that banning false advertising is censorship; banning false advertising is keeping people from buying products based on lies. [0]: https://imgur.com/xJ7eDbs https://imgur.com/xJ7eDbs [1]: https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-...

tomp 10y ago
I'm not sure we can use "number of shares" as a reliable metrics for how many people believe each piece of news. It's perfectly concievable that many people share it as "look at this obviously fake lie". I mean, how many shares do Onion articles get?
- EarthIsHome 10y ago
  It's a reliable metric in describing the possible reach of fake news. There will be a sizeable portion who believe what they read. This is straight up fiction being spread masquerading as truth, which should deeply trouble everyone who cares about what is correct and what is not. Speaking anecdotally, I nor my friends would share news we believed was fake. Would you share the fake source knowing it is fake news or would you share links exposing and explaining a fake news article? > I mean, how many shares do Onion articles get? Go take a gander at The Onion's Facebook page and scroll trying to find a fake article that has more than 10,000 shares.