4 ms·
> 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 shar
by 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 agoI'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 agoIt'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.