11 ms·

A German proposal to criminalize fake news

88 points by vezycash 10y ago

detaro 10y ago
dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13203211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13203211
sqeaky 10y ago
Clearly this is an attempt at censorship which is evil and stupid; But I want to step back and think about what the practical issues of trying to ban fake news. How does one differentiate between silly things that clearly satire like the onion and extremists like flat-earthers that cleared ought to be the target of satire? Let's presume all the Facebook and fakenews servers are outside of Germany, or whatever metaphorical country, then how are the laws suppose to stop them? Block that site in the country, that doesn't even work in China?
- danieldk 10y ago
  Clearly this is an attempt at censorship which is evil and stupid; Why should defamation laws that apply to newspapers and other media not apply to social media? Another issue is that defamation spreads much quicker through social media than most traditional means and it is harder to hold persons accountable (especially when they are not in the same country). So, it makes sense to evaluate what defamation means in the digital age. The parliamentary and judicial processes should show what is feasible and within bounds of the constitution. (I understand the frustration. Are you a big ad customer? You can call Facebook and get them to assist you immediately. Are you the victim of provably incorrect personal attacks, no way you can get Facebook to help. Unless you cause a big media storm.)
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    > Why should defamation laws that apply to newspapers and other media not apply to social media? Because social media everyone talking to everyone, not a (hopefully) trained and responsible person attempting to be a source of truth addressing the masses. I am also against libel laws and anti-defamation beyond the most minimal required to prevent fraud. When you start legislating truth it is only a matter of time until you have a state run ministry of truth.
- sabertoothed 10y ago
  While I agree with your overall sentiment, your statement "censorship which is evil and stupid" is clearly overly simplistic and, hence, wrong. 100% free speech does not exist in _any_ country (not even the US) - and it would not even be desirable. A society is better off overall if there are limits to free speech (think of insults, false advertisement, incitement, etc.). You probably have to argue in a more nuanced way.
  - jmcdiesel 10y ago
    > A society is better off overall if there are limits to free > speech (think of insults, false advertisement, incitement, > etc.) Insults? You should be able to (and protected to) insult anyone you please, at any time. Insult has to be taken. Insult is never given. There is no right to not be offended, and there should never be one, because offense/insult happen internally. You cannot insult me if i chose to not be insulted, you can not offend me if i chose to be offended. False advertisement isn't about free speech - it's about making a verbal contract and not following through. You're free to say whatever you want, and the offence isn't in the saying it, its in the failure to keep the contract. Society is rarely served by more restriction.
    - sabertoothed 10y ago
      I don't think you are right, here. At least from a factual "as is" legal standpoint but also from my moral standpoint ("what should be" / normative). I am not sure which standpoint you are addressing. The easiest standpoint to defend is the factual / descriptive "as is" legal standpoint: Insults / defamations are legally not allowed in most countries. False advertisement IS indeed an exception to free speech. See here [1]. But maybe you were not talking about descriptive claims but normative ones. This would be a very different discussion. [1] = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Commercial_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
    - paradite 10y ago
      Insults? You should be able to (and protected to) insult anyone you please, at any time. Insult has to be taken. Insult is never given. There is no right to not be offended, and there should never be one, because offense/insult happen internally. You cannot insult me if i chose to not be insulted, you can not offend me if i chose to be offended. This entire paragraph sounds like either paradox (first and last sentence) or sophistry.
- Florin_Andrei 10y ago
  The real question is: In the current world, where it's extremely easy to disseminate either real or false info on social media, and it has become possible to weaponize this mechanism to try and influence the core engine of a democracy (the minds of the voters), how would you re-define national defense in order to account for the new kind of threats in this environment?
0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
It's the thought that counts. I like you Germany. Edit: I'll miss those stories about the baby born with three heads, etc.
zaroth 10y ago
Free Speech by another name. The fakest thing about stories about fake news are the stories themselves. The whole thing is so meta. To anyone who thinks this is somehow a new phenomenon, please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre Self aware readers of all news anywhere know the truth; it's all "fake" it's just a matter of degree and perspective.
- jonny_eh 10y ago
  Fake news stories about Clinton running a child sex ring out of a DC pizza parlor isn't a matter of "degree" or "perspective"
  - golemotron 10y ago
    “A text is not a text unless it hides from the first comer, from the first glance, the law of its composition and the rules of its game. A text remains, moreover, forever imperceptible. Its laws and rules are not, however, harbored in the inaccessibility of a secret; it is simply that they can never be booked, in the present, into anything that could rigorously be called a perception.” ― Jacques Derrida
  - vkou 10y ago
    How much of this episode of BBC's Storyville about Gaddafi true and verifiable, true and unverfiable, and made-up blood libel? Which part of it is a matter of degree, and which part is a matter of perspective? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/10614411/Storyville-Mad-Dog-Gaddafis-Secret-World-review.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-r...
  - zaroth 10y ago
    Do you remember what we used to call all the behavior that Snowden confirmed was true, before he confirmed it? The Snowden revelations are a hell of a lot more shocking to my conscious than "Pizza Gate". It's absolutely a matter of degree and perspective. When conspiracy theories about politicians are illegal, then any critical public discourse about politicians is equally illegal. It seems to me only willful ignorance in search of political gain could explain an alternate position.
redthrowaway 10y ago
So the government will now decide which media sources the public is allowed to consume. That'll end well.
- boobsbr 10y ago
  Minitruth at work.
- chc 10y ago
  Do you object to laws against fraud in general or just this specific one?
  - mseebach 10y ago
    Fake news isn't fraud. If it was, no new laws would be needed, because fraud is already illegal.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      The problem is not any individual incident of "fake news" (propaganda) but the unending deluge of bullshit from some organizations. What Fox News pioneered with their loose handling of facts and always steering things towards a strong narrative that they controlled Breitbart took to the next level. Why twist the facts when you can make up your own? Now it's like people don't know what the truth is, and they don't really care. It's slowly corroded the foundation of democracy, that being people making decisions based on the available facts. If they're being told that Muslims or Jews are the problem on such a constant basis they might be forced to believe it due to peer pressure. I'm not sure laws can fix this. This is a systemic problem.
      - Crespyl 10y ago
        Gee, it's almost like the general population can't be trusted to reliably sort out the BS and make informed decisions. I guess it's just too bad that no one ever thought of some alternative to pure democracy, like electing a handful of trusted individuals to do the work as a full-time job and represent our interests. We could call it a "Republic" or something. Too bad nobody ever thought of that.
guard-of-terra 10y ago
My concern is that they'll quickly try to rebrand unsavoury news as "fake news" and criminalize that. For example, with their reluctance of reporting criminals' ethnicities/ethnic crime, they might label such articles "fake news" and do cenzorship with impunity.
- mcbetz 10y ago
  It is no "reluctance" but the Presserat codex that journalists adhere to: Just disclose the ethnicity if there is a pressing need to do so [1]. And note that this is not something "the government" has imposed, it has been discussed over and over again and the Presserat has members from all walks of journalist life (conservative and tabloid Axel Springer as well as more liberal papers). And besides that, this "reluctance" is a very subjective observation that you make. There is such a variety of media in Germany and you can certainly find "ethnic crime" reporting in huge papers such as BILD, Welt and FAZ. [1] "In der Berichterstattung über Straftaten wird die Zugehörigkeit der Verdächtigen oder Täter zu religiösen, ethnischen oder anderen Minderheiten nur dann erwähnt, wenn für das Verständnis des berichteten Vorgangs ein begründbarer Sachbezug besteht." - http://www.presserat.de/pressekodex/pressekodex/#panel-ziffer_12____diskriminierungen http://www.presserat.de/pressekodex/pressekodex/#panel-ziffe...
partycoder 10y ago
Fake news can affect the economy negatively. Traders, including trading bots use news as input.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  I was going to say that free speech in a fundamental human right but then you mentioned the economy and I'm all on board for censorship.
  - partycoder 10y ago
    It's not really censorship. It's journalistic rigor. - In science, the scientific method requires you to present facts. - In the justice system, the burden of proof is on the party presenting an accusation. Now, journalistic reports can be considered products of sort that are the source of significant revenue. Most products are subject to certain scrutiny or regulation... why is journalism an exception? There needs to be accountability. Fake news are a disservice to society, hence the "fake" denomination.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      I look forward to reading your purposed constitutional amendment.
yomly 10y ago
Tabloids have a long history of fabricating stories. Will they be held accountable? Whenever I read about fake-news it is generally associated with the alt-right but people seem to forget that the established news are equally as guilty. I recall losing a lot of faith in the NYT when I read the Amazon expose and felt it read more like a vendetta piece/sensational than truthful objective journalism.
- kuschku 10y ago
  They already are. And this law just applies the laws that apply to the tabloids also to the web.
  - detaro 10y ago
    Eh, the highest punishment for a newspaper generally is that they are forced to publish a retraction, and maybe civil damages for someone they reported about. I can't think of any law that explicitly punishes made up reports. Is there one I'm not aware of?
    - lb1lf 10y ago
      I'd guess that in many jurisdictions, some libel law could be used to slap them if the story names individuals or (some places) corporate entities. This probably would require the mentioned parties to sue, though - so no luck if it is a fake news story portraying someone in a positive light.
  - yomly 10y ago
    But are they really held accountable? If they were they would stop doing it. A slap on the wrist fine that is filed under "cost of doing business" in their P&L isn't really accountability...
    - kuschku 10y ago
      They are held responsible in the same way as the news websites will be - if they remove the article fast enough, and publish an article that's equally visible retracting their previous statement, within of 24h, there won't be any punishment.
Pigo 10y ago
I suppose this is worrisome as a precedent, but I honestly could care less what happens to companies that are nothing but an social media presence. I can't think of anything we gain from their existence, and I pity the people who rely on them for any sort of information. And I'm still not convinced they really exist.
da_n 10y ago
Much like the hideous legislation passed in the UK, at this point I just think bring it. The more governments overtly undertake efforts to wrestle control of the internet, sanitise and snoop every aspect of it, and slowly destroy it, the greater an incentive to "fork the internet" becomes.
- chippy 10y ago
  I also had a similar "chilling" thought and it took me back to when there was no web where the world of information was only accessible in person at a library.
thhtoewawyaya 10y ago
Incredibly naive. The most dangerous results of fake news are such things as yellow cake -- which was published by the new York times. This is censorship, plain and simple.
_rpd 10y ago
How will the law define "fake news"? This is not a minor problem. "Contains a factual error, beyond reasonable doubt?" "Likely to mislead, on the balance of probabilities?" "At least one non-typographical error due to journalistic negligence?" It would be very easy for the vast majority of news articles to fall within the scope of a broadly drafted "fake news" law.
badlogic 10y ago
I wonder if a better approach would be to make critical media consumption mandatory in schools. This approach seems like a whack-a-mole game.
metaphorm 10y ago
so what happens when everyone starts accusing everyone of publishing "fake news"?
- goerz 10y ago
  They'd have to bring them to court
cygx 10y ago
Some details about the measures under discussion: http://www.dw.com/en/500000-euro-fines-for-fake-news-on-facebook-in-germany/a-36806244 http://www.dw.com/en/500000-euro-fines-for-fake-news-on-face...
x2398dh1 10y ago
Lots of opinion here, no real data. The one chart from the pew research center is how people, "feel," about an issue. OK...so what? Ironically, Hacker News is censored by Y-Combinator, but no one on this thread seems to mind. As soon as it's a government body however, many people on this particular thread are up-in-arms. So one thing we do know for certain is that stated intent about censorship is different than actual behavior, within the context of our discussion. How can we improve this conversation? In general, people love censorship if it benefits themselves, (in the case of Hacker News, keeping a non-post-September environment), but they don't like the idea of it potentially damaging free speech and causing societal dissent overall. I don't know the answer here, but I was reminded of something interesting I read years ago, about how we can, "measure" the type of censorship going on. There have been many studies that have come out measuring the speed and duration and types of Chinese censorship, and it's really interesting; here is an example: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/512231/computer-scientists-measure-the-speed-of-censorship-on-chinas-twitter/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/512231/computer-scientist... I know there are ways to measure censorship, I have never seen a structured approach to measuring internet censorship that already exists in Hacker News or the type of astroturfing that is done by the US Government already, etc. Those types of articles I think would heighten the discussion from the current state of, "hurr durr Government censorship universally bad in all circumstances, regardless of whether it's blatantly false."
nisse72 10y ago
How do you even define fake news? Or will also fiction be banned?
- goerz 10y ago
  You could define it more or less to be synonymous to 'lie': knowingly presenting false factual information. Fiction does not generally make factual statement or if it does (e.g. in the case of satire) it is labeled as non-factual.
tritenonsense3 10y ago
Fake news is getting all this attention, as if suddenly human society has gone from peddling objective truth 24/7 to spewing raw sewage. Let's never mind that for centuries human culture was centered around nonsense ideas; religion. As if government and journalism as a whole have ever been entirely "fact driven" entities, that have never peddled tailored narratives. The big corps make their money of peddling BS; advertising. The truth is out there. It's just no one wants to find it themselves. Always "too busy". If you don't care to know the truth yourself, why should anyone that's peddling it? Take some initiative in seeing through bullshit, for the benefit of yourself.
empath75 10y ago
So, there are a few kinds of fake news, in no particular order: 1) Clickbait made purely to attract clicks for the purposes of earning ad revenue. It may be partisan, but it's not motivated by partisanship. 2) Sloppy or flat out bad reporting by mainstream media sources, including state media like the BBC. This might or might not be motivated by partisanship on the part of the reporter or media outlet, but generally these institutions operate under a code of ethics and will issue corrections, etc. 3) Radical political media. Far left and far right bloggers, terrorist groups, hate groups, etc. 4) State sponsored or funded propaganda. This is media purely produced for the purposes of achieving some policy objective, particularly in a foreign country. They have absolutely no ethics guidelines and only use the truth in as much as it helps them, and will happily lie, otherwise. I think the first two can be attacked by going after advertisers and platforms that fund it, and in the case of 'independent' state media, they seem to be fairly responsive to criticism. The latter two are really the most pernicious kind and the most difficult to stop. The third, assuming they're domestic groups, can probably be hurt by libel laws in particularly egregious cases, but really both of them would be difficult to stop without imposing an oppressive censorship regime that would shut down plenty of legitimate media and criticisms. I think the only way to resolve it is through education and investigations into the backgrounds of the worst offenders, and letting the public know who is funding these groups and what their goals are. Ultimately, the 'mainstream' media is going to have to get off its ass and actually do some reporting on this. Part of the reason this is such a problem, imo, to begin with is that the mainstream media has served the wealthy and the elites for so long, that people simply don't trust them. What we need is a populist mainstream media organization which both has a real code of ethics and goes out of the way to serve the needs of the masses rather than the ultra wealthy and advertisers.
petre 10y ago
Fake news = news that doesn't support the government's agenda. Merkel is going down anyway in next year's elections. She invited 1M+ refugees into Europe after taking a hardline on Greece. No amount of whitewashing is going to fix this. Just remember Hitler also banned fake news in 1933 after the Reichstag Fire. These are very interesting times indeed.
Mikeb85 10y ago
Who gets to decide what news is actually fake? This is a rabbit hole that leads to nowhere good - with legislation like this, the authorities become the sole arbiters of truth. So long democracy, was nice knowing you... Edit - lol at all the comments suggesting that the government may abuse this law getting down-voted.

88 points by vezycash 10y ago

dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13203211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13203211

Clearly this is an attempt at censorship which is evil and stupid; But I want to step back and think about what the practical issues of trying to ban fake news. How does one differentiate between silly things that clearly satire like the onion and extremists like flat-earthers that cleared ought to be the target of satire? Let's presume all the Facebook and fakenews servers are outside of Germany, or whatever metaphorical country, then how are the laws suppose to stop them? Block that site in the country, that doesn't even work in China?

danieldk 10y ago
Clearly this is an attempt at censorship which is evil and stupid; Why should defamation laws that apply to newspapers and other media not apply to social media? Another issue is that defamation spreads much quicker through social media than most traditional means and it is harder to hold persons accountable (especially when they are not in the same country). So, it makes sense to evaluate what defamation means in the digital age. The parliamentary and judicial processes should show what is feasible and within bounds of the constitution. (I understand the frustration. Are you a big ad customer? You can call Facebook and get them to assist you immediately. Are you the victim of provably incorrect personal attacks, no way you can get Facebook to help. Unless you cause a big media storm.)
- sqeaky 10y ago
  > Why should defamation laws that apply to newspapers and other media not apply to social media? Because social media everyone talking to everyone, not a (hopefully) trained and responsible person attempting to be a source of truth addressing the masses. I am also against libel laws and anti-defamation beyond the most minimal required to prevent fraud. When you start legislating truth it is only a matter of time until you have a state run ministry of truth.
sabertoothed 10y ago
While I agree with your overall sentiment, your statement "censorship which is evil and stupid" is clearly overly simplistic and, hence, wrong. 100% free speech does not exist in _any_ country (not even the US) - and it would not even be desirable. A society is better off overall if there are limits to free speech (think of insults, false advertisement, incitement, etc.). You probably have to argue in a more nuanced way.
- jmcdiesel 10y ago
  > A society is better off overall if there are limits to free > speech (think of insults, false advertisement, incitement, > etc.) Insults? You should be able to (and protected to) insult anyone you please, at any time. Insult has to be taken. Insult is never given. There is no right to not be offended, and there should never be one, because offense/insult happen internally. You cannot insult me if i chose to not be insulted, you can not offend me if i chose to be offended. False advertisement isn't about free speech - it's about making a verbal contract and not following through. You're free to say whatever you want, and the offence isn't in the saying it, its in the failure to keep the contract. Society is rarely served by more restriction.
  - sabertoothed 10y ago
    I don't think you are right, here. At least from a factual "as is" legal standpoint but also from my moral standpoint ("what should be" / normative). I am not sure which standpoint you are addressing. The easiest standpoint to defend is the factual / descriptive "as is" legal standpoint: Insults / defamations are legally not allowed in most countries. False advertisement IS indeed an exception to free speech. See here [1]. But maybe you were not talking about descriptive claims but normative ones. This would be a very different discussion. [1] = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Commercial_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
  - paradite 10y ago
    Insults? You should be able to (and protected to) insult anyone you please, at any time. Insult has to be taken. Insult is never given. There is no right to not be offended, and there should never be one, because offense/insult happen internally. You cannot insult me if i chose to not be insulted, you can not offend me if i chose to be offended. This entire paragraph sounds like either paradox (first and last sentence) or sophistry.
Florin_Andrei 10y ago
The real question is: In the current world, where it's extremely easy to disseminate either real or false info on social media, and it has become possible to weaponize this mechanism to try and influence the core engine of a democracy (the minds of the voters), how would you re-define national defense in order to account for the new kind of threats in this environment?

0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago

It's the thought that counts. I like you Germany. Edit: I'll miss those stories about the baby born with three heads, etc.

zaroth 10y ago

Free Speech by another name. The fakest thing about stories about fake news are the stories themselves. The whole thing is so meta. To anyone who thinks this is somehow a new phenomenon, please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre Self aware readers of all news anywhere know the truth; it's all "fake" it's just a matter of degree and perspective.

jonny_eh 10y ago
Fake news stories about Clinton running a child sex ring out of a DC pizza parlor isn't a matter of "degree" or "perspective"
- golemotron 10y ago
  “A text is not a text unless it hides from the first comer, from the first glance, the law of its composition and the rules of its game. A text remains, moreover, forever imperceptible. Its laws and rules are not, however, harbored in the inaccessibility of a secret; it is simply that they can never be booked, in the present, into anything that could rigorously be called a perception.” ― Jacques Derrida
- vkou 10y ago
  How much of this episode of BBC's Storyville about Gaddafi true and verifiable, true and unverfiable, and made-up blood libel? Which part of it is a matter of degree, and which part is a matter of perspective? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/10614411/Storyville-Mad-Dog-Gaddafis-Secret-World-review.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-r...
- zaroth 10y ago
  Do you remember what we used to call all the behavior that Snowden confirmed was true, before he confirmed it? The Snowden revelations are a hell of a lot more shocking to my conscious than "Pizza Gate". It's absolutely a matter of degree and perspective. When conspiracy theories about politicians are illegal, then any critical public discourse about politicians is equally illegal. It seems to me only willful ignorance in search of political gain could explain an alternate position.

redthrowaway 10y ago

So the government will now decide which media sources the public is allowed to consume. That'll end well.

boobsbr 10y ago
Minitruth at work.
chc 10y ago
Do you object to laws against fraud in general or just this specific one?
- mseebach 10y ago
  Fake news isn't fraud. If it was, no new laws would be needed, because fraud is already illegal.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    The problem is not any individual incident of "fake news" (propaganda) but the unending deluge of bullshit from some organizations. What Fox News pioneered with their loose handling of facts and always steering things towards a strong narrative that they controlled Breitbart took to the next level. Why twist the facts when you can make up your own? Now it's like people don't know what the truth is, and they don't really care. It's slowly corroded the foundation of democracy, that being people making decisions based on the available facts. If they're being told that Muslims or Jews are the problem on such a constant basis they might be forced to believe it due to peer pressure. I'm not sure laws can fix this. This is a systemic problem.
    - Crespyl 10y ago
      Gee, it's almost like the general population can't be trusted to reliably sort out the BS and make informed decisions. I guess it's just too bad that no one ever thought of some alternative to pure democracy, like electing a handful of trusted individuals to do the work as a full-time job and represent our interests. We could call it a "Republic" or something. Too bad nobody ever thought of that.

guard-of-terra 10y ago

My concern is that they'll quickly try to rebrand unsavoury news as "fake news" and criminalize that. For example, with their reluctance of reporting criminals' ethnicities/ethnic crime, they might label such articles "fake news" and do cenzorship with impunity.

mcbetz 10y ago
It is no "reluctance" but the Presserat codex that journalists adhere to: Just disclose the ethnicity if there is a pressing need to do so [1]. And note that this is not something "the government" has imposed, it has been discussed over and over again and the Presserat has members from all walks of journalist life (conservative and tabloid Axel Springer as well as more liberal papers). And besides that, this "reluctance" is a very subjective observation that you make. There is such a variety of media in Germany and you can certainly find "ethnic crime" reporting in huge papers such as BILD, Welt and FAZ. [1] "In der Berichterstattung über Straftaten wird die Zugehörigkeit der Verdächtigen oder Täter zu religiösen, ethnischen oder anderen Minderheiten nur dann erwähnt, wenn für das Verständnis des berichteten Vorgangs ein begründbarer Sachbezug besteht." - http://www.presserat.de/pressekodex/pressekodex/#panel-ziffer_12____diskriminierungen http://www.presserat.de/pressekodex/pressekodex/#panel-ziffe...

partycoder 10y ago

Fake news can affect the economy negatively. Traders, including trading bots use news as input.

cmdrfred 10y ago
I was going to say that free speech in a fundamental human right but then you mentioned the economy and I'm all on board for censorship.
- partycoder 10y ago
  It's not really censorship. It's journalistic rigor. - In science, the scientific method requires you to present facts. - In the justice system, the burden of proof is on the party presenting an accusation. Now, journalistic reports can be considered products of sort that are the source of significant revenue. Most products are subject to certain scrutiny or regulation... why is journalism an exception? There needs to be accountability. Fake news are a disservice to society, hence the "fake" denomination.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    I look forward to reading your purposed constitutional amendment.

yomly 10y ago

Tabloids have a long history of fabricating stories. Will they be held accountable? Whenever I read about fake-news it is generally associated with the alt-right but people seem to forget that the established news are equally as guilty. I recall losing a lot of faith in the NYT when I read the Amazon expose and felt it read more like a vendetta piece/sensational than truthful objective journalism.

kuschku 10y ago
They already are. And this law just applies the laws that apply to the tabloids also to the web.
- detaro 10y ago
  Eh, the highest punishment for a newspaper generally is that they are forced to publish a retraction, and maybe civil damages for someone they reported about. I can't think of any law that explicitly punishes made up reports. Is there one I'm not aware of?
  - lb1lf 10y ago
    I'd guess that in many jurisdictions, some libel law could be used to slap them if the story names individuals or (some places) corporate entities. This probably would require the mentioned parties to sue, though - so no luck if it is a fake news story portraying someone in a positive light.
- yomly 10y ago
  But are they really held accountable? If they were they would stop doing it. A slap on the wrist fine that is filed under "cost of doing business" in their P&L isn't really accountability...
  - kuschku 10y ago
    They are held responsible in the same way as the news websites will be - if they remove the article fast enough, and publish an article that's equally visible retracting their previous statement, within of 24h, there won't be any punishment.

Pigo 10y ago

I suppose this is worrisome as a precedent, but I honestly could care less what happens to companies that are nothing but an social media presence. I can't think of anything we gain from their existence, and I pity the people who rely on them for any sort of information. And I'm still not convinced they really exist.

da_n 10y ago

Much like the hideous legislation passed in the UK, at this point I just think bring it. The more governments overtly undertake efforts to wrestle control of the internet, sanitise and snoop every aspect of it, and slowly destroy it, the greater an incentive to "fork the internet" becomes.

chippy 10y ago
I also had a similar "chilling" thought and it took me back to when there was no web where the world of information was only accessible in person at a library.

thhtoewawyaya 10y ago

Incredibly naive. The most dangerous results of fake news are such things as yellow cake -- which was published by the new York times. This is censorship, plain and simple.

_rpd 10y ago

How will the law define "fake news"? This is not a minor problem. "Contains a factual error, beyond reasonable doubt?" "Likely to mislead, on the balance of probabilities?" "At least one non-typographical error due to journalistic negligence?" It would be very easy for the vast majority of news articles to fall within the scope of a broadly drafted "fake news" law.

badlogic 10y ago

I wonder if a better approach would be to make critical media consumption mandatory in schools. This approach seems like a whack-a-mole game.

metaphorm 10y ago

so what happens when everyone starts accusing everyone of publishing "fake news"?

goerz 10y ago
They'd have to bring them to court

cygx 10y ago

Some details about the measures under discussion: http://www.dw.com/en/500000-euro-fines-for-fake-news-on-facebook-in-germany/a-36806244 http://www.dw.com/en/500000-euro-fines-for-fake-news-on-face...

x2398dh1 10y ago

Lots of opinion here, no real data. The one chart from the pew research center is how people, "feel," about an issue. OK...so what? Ironically, Hacker News is censored by Y-Combinator, but no one on this thread seems to mind. As soon as it's a government body however, many people on this particular thread are up-in-arms. So one thing we do know for certain is that stated intent about censorship is different than actual behavior, within the context of our discussion. How can we improve this conversation? In general, people love censorship if it benefits themselves, (in the case of Hacker News, keeping a non-post-September environment), but they don't like the idea of it potentially damaging free speech and causing societal dissent overall. I don't know the answer here, but I was reminded of something interesting I read years ago, about how we can, "measure" the type of censorship going on. There have been many studies that have come out measuring the speed and duration and types of Chinese censorship, and it's really interesting; here is an example: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/512231/computer-scientists-measure-the-speed-of-censorship-on-chinas-twitter/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/512231/computer-scientist... I know there are ways to measure censorship, I have never seen a structured approach to measuring internet censorship that already exists in Hacker News or the type of astroturfing that is done by the US Government already, etc. Those types of articles I think would heighten the discussion from the current state of, "hurr durr Government censorship universally bad in all circumstances, regardless of whether it's blatantly false."

nisse72 10y ago

How do you even define fake news? Or will also fiction be banned?

goerz 10y ago
You could define it more or less to be synonymous to 'lie': knowingly presenting false factual information. Fiction does not generally make factual statement or if it does (e.g. in the case of satire) it is labeled as non-factual.

tritenonsense3 10y ago

Fake news is getting all this attention, as if suddenly human society has gone from peddling objective truth 24/7 to spewing raw sewage. Let's never mind that for centuries human culture was centered around nonsense ideas; religion. As if government and journalism as a whole have ever been entirely "fact driven" entities, that have never peddled tailored narratives. The big corps make their money of peddling BS; advertising. The truth is out there. It's just no one wants to find it themselves. Always "too busy". If you don't care to know the truth yourself, why should anyone that's peddling it? Take some initiative in seeing through bullshit, for the benefit of yourself.

empath75 10y ago

So, there are a few kinds of fake news, in no particular order: 1) Clickbait made purely to attract clicks for the purposes of earning ad revenue. It may be partisan, but it's not motivated by partisanship. 2) Sloppy or flat out bad reporting by mainstream media sources, including state media like the BBC. This might or might not be motivated by partisanship on the part of the reporter or media outlet, but generally these institutions operate under a code of ethics and will issue corrections, etc. 3) Radical political media. Far left and far right bloggers, terrorist groups, hate groups, etc. 4) State sponsored or funded propaganda. This is media purely produced for the purposes of achieving some policy objective, particularly in a foreign country. They have absolutely no ethics guidelines and only use the truth in as much as it helps them, and will happily lie, otherwise. I think the first two can be attacked by going after advertisers and platforms that fund it, and in the case of 'independent' state media, they seem to be fairly responsive to criticism. The latter two are really the most pernicious kind and the most difficult to stop. The third, assuming they're domestic groups, can probably be hurt by libel laws in particularly egregious cases, but really both of them would be difficult to stop without imposing an oppressive censorship regime that would shut down plenty of legitimate media and criticisms. I think the only way to resolve it is through education and investigations into the backgrounds of the worst offenders, and letting the public know who is funding these groups and what their goals are. Ultimately, the 'mainstream' media is going to have to get off its ass and actually do some reporting on this. Part of the reason this is such a problem, imo, to begin with is that the mainstream media has served the wealthy and the elites for so long, that people simply don't trust them. What we need is a populist mainstream media organization which both has a real code of ethics and goes out of the way to serve the needs of the masses rather than the ultra wealthy and advertisers.

petre 10y ago

Fake news = news that doesn't support the government's agenda. Merkel is going down anyway in next year's elections. She invited 1M+ refugees into Europe after taking a hardline on Greece. No amount of whitewashing is going to fix this. Just remember Hitler also banned fake news in 1933 after the Reichstag Fire. These are very interesting times indeed.

Mikeb85 10y ago

Who gets to decide what news is actually fake? This is a rabbit hole that leads to nowhere good - with legislation like this, the authorities become the sole arbiters of truth. So long democracy, was nice knowing you... Edit - lol at all the comments suggesting that the government may abuse this law getting down-voted.