7 ms·

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

by redthrowaway 10y ago

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.
      - chc 10y ago
        Republics don't really solve the problem of the people making poor decisions based on bad information. They just introduce a layer of indirection, punting the problem to the election of the "handful of trusted individuals." In order to truly get around the problem of misinformed voters, we'd need a metarepublic to determine which individuals can be trusted to represent our interests in the republic — and then it's turtles all the way down.
        alxndr 10y ago
        > we'd need a metarepublic to determine which individuals can be trusted to represent our interests in the republic Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is Hamilton's argument for having Electors cast the actual ballots for President without necessarily being beholden to how their state voted. >Hamilton viewed the system as superior to direct popular election. First, he recognized, the "sense of the people should operate in the choice", and would through the election of the electors to the Electoral College. Second, the electors would be: > "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice." >Such men would be "most likely to have the information and discernment" to make a good choice, and avoid the election of anyone "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68#Hamilton.27s_understanding_of_the_Electoral_College https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68#Hamilton.27s...
      - astrodust 10y ago
        The general public has other priorities than trying to get to the bottom of every story they've heard. Democracy only functions properly when the electorate is well informed, that is being fed a steady diet of actual facts, figures, and editorial that puts it in perspective without heavily distorting the truth. Whatever form your democracy takes, "Republic" or otherwise, it depends on meaningful discussion and debate, not the current climate where one side refuses to engage with the other, or facts in general. There are many different lenses to view the world through, but it's like these major media outlets aren't even interested in our world and instead create one that fits their views, then pretend to live in it. "Millions of illegals voting" is just one example of this.
  - chc 10y ago
    In most places, fraud laws only cover some instances of the broader concept of fraud. For example, if I get people to buy tickets to a fictitious concert and then run off with the money, that's legally fraud. But if convince you to drive up to Portland for a concert that doesn't exist just to waste your time, that's not legally fraud because I didn't directly profit from the deception. Similarly with fake news, people are not being defrauded out of their money, but the deed itself is no less fraudulent.
kiba 10y ago
As opposed to letting transparently false information trick people who should know better? You're right, we should be leery about government regulations, but false information is a problem.
- Mahn 10y ago
  Technically, the people who believe false information and aren't critical are the problem, but I guess there's not a whole lot we can do about that, other than prevent the incentives that currently exist for fake news (ad profit)?
  - saurik 10y ago
    Yeah: I'd even argue that banning the sale of advertising space "by the click" or even "by the view" (as opposed to "by the action": where someone has to actually purchase the product being advertised before the website gets paid, which is a much better model anyway) would be a safer thing to do to civilization (and would have tons of other really nice effects; we'd probably finally get rid of those articles which are broken into 20 pages, one sentence a page, in the hope of getting more "clicks") than having state-sponsored censorship. I mean: isn't it extremely interesting that we are now walking backwards to this point starting with "due to a lack of this kind of censorship, we allowed a very conservative person to get into office"; it is almost like this is being taken as an "opportunity" to get liberal people who otherwise would balk at this idea to get on board because now it is supposedly on their side and is couched in terms they agree with. I wonder if there are people who noticed this whole thing as their opening to finally broach the subject with Western civilization :/.
- saurik 10y ago
  China often claims their censorship of news is about reducing the spread of "false" information. Who decides what is "false"? If we have to have someone doing that, I'd argue the one group that must be immediately disqualified from that position is the government, given that they have a known and totally on-purpose information imbalance with the public about tons of subjects they consider sensitive or "classified", and that a large amount of media reporting is about the government and wants to touch on these subjects.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
okreallywtf 10y ago
What do you propose as an alternative? Simply allow people to intentionally mislead people for their own gain? I know a cynic will say "well thats what media does!" but no, it doesn't. Not at the level that the current breed of fake news and propaganda is doing. Exaggeration and taking things out of context are one thing (and in some cases nearly as bad), but totally inventing stories about people and using that to manipulate people is awful. I don't think "outlawing" it is the right way to go about it but there has to be a label that says "This is not a reputable organization" so that people that don't know better don't stumble in there and not know the difference and end up ready to shoot up a pizza place to save some imaginary children. What has go to with this though is a totally open algorithm for declaring something fake news, essentially a non-partisan fact-checked breakdown of exactly how some source was declared to be "fake" and maybe some other automated metrics. Granted, this will not catch the people who desperately want to believe the fake news or who already believe it, it is just to keep more gullible people from stumbling into the trap. Just like Chrome warns you when a cert isn't valid, why not say "hey you are leaving the beaten path of facts, proceed at your own risk". I'm not saying its up to google but search engines are a logical choice, but it has to be done transparently and there has to be an appeals process in case it was a mistake.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  Exaggeration and taking things out of context are one thing (and in some cases nearly as bad), but totally inventing stories about people and using that to manipulate people is awful. Why is "soft-dishonesty" okay but "hard-dishonesty" unacceptable? Your argument is predicated on that being true, but it's an assumption. What's more insidious, someone who lies to your face or someone who's acting like your friend but lying behind your back? What has go to with this though is a totally open algorithm for declaring something fake news, essentially a non-partisan fact-checked breakdown of exactly how some source was declared to be "fake" and maybe some other automated metrics. Humans have to build this, which means human bias is inherent in it. I don't think you have any idea how difficult this kind of event classification is. Political science struggles to do it years after the fact.
- redthrowaway 10y ago
  >What do you propose as an alternative? Simply allow people to intentionally mislead people for their own gain? Yes? That's kind of one of the founding principles of liberal democracy. It was a good idea in 1791, and it's still a good idea today. The left is flipping its shit about "fake news" these days, but even in the US they've gone through far worse eras in terms of news reliability. The fact that you used to have gatekeepers who were more or less honest is an artifact of the startup costs of the television and newspaper industries, not some nirvanal state that has collapsed into darkness. Seriously, go take a look at some of the shit pamphleteers were up to in the 1800s. The state of affairs today is nothing. Democracy can survive people lying. It can't survive granting the government the ability to determine which "facts" the people are allowed to believe.
Florin_Andrei 10y ago
What would you do when "news" on social media is weaponized, and is used to shift the thought patterns of whole populations? How would you redefine national defense in that context? Ignore any real or alleged connections to recent events, just focus on these questions, as a thought experiment.
- redthrowaway 10y ago
  >What would you do when "news" on social media is weaponized, and is used to shift the thought patterns of whole populations? >Ignore any real or alleged connections to recent events Please. And there are plenty of ways to counter foreign propaganda, but a democracy needs to trust its citizens to discern the truth for themselves.
  - Florin_Andrei 10y ago
    So no national defense whatsoever in this realm. A democracy needs to trust its citizens to throw rocks at the invading army.
    - redthrowaway 10y ago
      Take a deep breath. There will be other elections.
      - Florin_Andrei 10y ago
        That was a compelling, well thought-out intellectual answer to my question. Somehow I am not surprised. And it confirms that this is all about winning at any cost. Yep, sounds about right.

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.
    - chc 10y ago
      Republics don't really solve the problem of the people making poor decisions based on bad information. They just introduce a layer of indirection, punting the problem to the election of the "handful of trusted individuals." In order to truly get around the problem of misinformed voters, we'd need a metarepublic to determine which individuals can be trusted to represent our interests in the republic — and then it's turtles all the way down.
      - alxndr 10y ago
        > we'd need a metarepublic to determine which individuals can be trusted to represent our interests in the republic Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is Hamilton's argument for having Electors cast the actual ballots for President without necessarily being beholden to how their state voted. >Hamilton viewed the system as superior to direct popular election. First, he recognized, the "sense of the people should operate in the choice", and would through the election of the electors to the Electoral College. Second, the electors would be: > "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice." >Such men would be "most likely to have the information and discernment" to make a good choice, and avoid the election of anyone "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68#Hamilton.27s_understanding_of_the_Electoral_College https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68#Hamilton.27s...
    - astrodust 10y ago
      The general public has other priorities than trying to get to the bottom of every story they've heard. Democracy only functions properly when the electorate is well informed, that is being fed a steady diet of actual facts, figures, and editorial that puts it in perspective without heavily distorting the truth. Whatever form your democracy takes, "Republic" or otherwise, it depends on meaningful discussion and debate, not the current climate where one side refuses to engage with the other, or facts in general. There are many different lenses to view the world through, but it's like these major media outlets aren't even interested in our world and instead create one that fits their views, then pretend to live in it. "Millions of illegals voting" is just one example of this.
- chc 10y ago
  In most places, fraud laws only cover some instances of the broader concept of fraud. For example, if I get people to buy tickets to a fictitious concert and then run off with the money, that's legally fraud. But if convince you to drive up to Portland for a concert that doesn't exist just to waste your time, that's not legally fraud because I didn't directly profit from the deception. Similarly with fake news, people are not being defrauded out of their money, but the deed itself is no less fraudulent.

kiba 10y ago

As opposed to letting transparently false information trick people who should know better? You're right, we should be leery about government regulations, but false information is a problem.

Mahn 10y ago
Technically, the people who believe false information and aren't critical are the problem, but I guess there's not a whole lot we can do about that, other than prevent the incentives that currently exist for fake news (ad profit)?
- saurik 10y ago
  Yeah: I'd even argue that banning the sale of advertising space "by the click" or even "by the view" (as opposed to "by the action": where someone has to actually purchase the product being advertised before the website gets paid, which is a much better model anyway) would be a safer thing to do to civilization (and would have tons of other really nice effects; we'd probably finally get rid of those articles which are broken into 20 pages, one sentence a page, in the hope of getting more "clicks") than having state-sponsored censorship. I mean: isn't it extremely interesting that we are now walking backwards to this point starting with "due to a lack of this kind of censorship, we allowed a very conservative person to get into office"; it is almost like this is being taken as an "opportunity" to get liberal people who otherwise would balk at this idea to get on board because now it is supposedly on their side and is couched in terms they agree with. I wonder if there are people who noticed this whole thing as their opening to finally broach the subject with Western civilization :/.
saurik 10y ago
China often claims their censorship of news is about reducing the spread of "false" information. Who decides what is "false"? If we have to have someone doing that, I'd argue the one group that must be immediately disqualified from that position is the government, given that they have a known and totally on-purpose information imbalance with the public about tons of subjects they consider sensitive or "classified", and that a large amount of media reporting is about the government and wants to touch on these subjects.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

okreallywtf 10y ago

What do you propose as an alternative? Simply allow people to intentionally mislead people for their own gain? I know a cynic will say "well thats what media does!" but no, it doesn't. Not at the level that the current breed of fake news and propaganda is doing. Exaggeration and taking things out of context are one thing (and in some cases nearly as bad), but totally inventing stories about people and using that to manipulate people is awful. I don't think "outlawing" it is the right way to go about it but there has to be a label that says "This is not a reputable organization" so that people that don't know better don't stumble in there and not know the difference and end up ready to shoot up a pizza place to save some imaginary children. What has go to with this though is a totally open algorithm for declaring something fake news, essentially a non-partisan fact-checked breakdown of exactly how some source was declared to be "fake" and maybe some other automated metrics. Granted, this will not catch the people who desperately want to believe the fake news or who already believe it, it is just to keep more gullible people from stumbling into the trap. Just like Chrome warns you when a cert isn't valid, why not say "hey you are leaving the beaten path of facts, proceed at your own risk". I'm not saying its up to google but search engines are a logical choice, but it has to be done transparently and there has to be an appeals process in case it was a mistake.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
Exaggeration and taking things out of context are one thing (and in some cases nearly as bad), but totally inventing stories about people and using that to manipulate people is awful. Why is "soft-dishonesty" okay but "hard-dishonesty" unacceptable? Your argument is predicated on that being true, but it's an assumption. What's more insidious, someone who lies to your face or someone who's acting like your friend but lying behind your back? What has go to with this though is a totally open algorithm for declaring something fake news, essentially a non-partisan fact-checked breakdown of exactly how some source was declared to be "fake" and maybe some other automated metrics. Humans have to build this, which means human bias is inherent in it. I don't think you have any idea how difficult this kind of event classification is. Political science struggles to do it years after the fact.
redthrowaway 10y ago
>What do you propose as an alternative? Simply allow people to intentionally mislead people for their own gain? Yes? That's kind of one of the founding principles of liberal democracy. It was a good idea in 1791, and it's still a good idea today. The left is flipping its shit about "fake news" these days, but even in the US they've gone through far worse eras in terms of news reliability. The fact that you used to have gatekeepers who were more or less honest is an artifact of the startup costs of the television and newspaper industries, not some nirvanal state that has collapsed into darkness. Seriously, go take a look at some of the shit pamphleteers were up to in the 1800s. The state of affairs today is nothing. Democracy can survive people lying. It can't survive granting the government the ability to determine which "facts" the people are allowed to believe.

Florin_Andrei 10y ago

What would you do when "news" on social media is weaponized, and is used to shift the thought patterns of whole populations? How would you redefine national defense in that context? Ignore any real or alleged connections to recent events, just focus on these questions, as a thought experiment.

redthrowaway 10y ago
>What would you do when "news" on social media is weaponized, and is used to shift the thought patterns of whole populations? >Ignore any real or alleged connections to recent events Please. And there are plenty of ways to counter foreign propaganda, but a democracy needs to trust its citizens to discern the truth for themselves.
- Florin_Andrei 10y ago
  So no national defense whatsoever in this realm. A democracy needs to trust its citizens to throw rocks at the invading army.
  - redthrowaway 10y ago
    Take a deep breath. There will be other elections.
    - Florin_Andrei 10y ago
      That was a compelling, well thought-out intellectual answer to my question. Somehow I am not surprised. And it confirms that this is all about winning at any cost. Yep, sounds about right.