4 ms·

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 d

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.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  > one of the founding principles No, it's an ugly consequence of the principle that probably can't be disentangled from it.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  > 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. Actually, it was a result of treating things like the airwaves as a public trust and imposing stuff like the Fairness Doctrine.
- okreallywtf 10y ago
  >Democracy can survive people lying. It can't survive granting the government the ability to determine which "facts" the people are allowed to believe. This only holds assuming we have time to work things out naturally - unfortunately that is not the case at least in the context of climate change to ignore all other issues. Of course if you drink the fake-news coolaid you'll debate that climate change is happening or that its not man-made or wherever the goal-post has been moved to today. Hey everyone's opinion is the same though right? Your fact is my fiction! We're not talking the esoterics of democratic theory, we're talking the basic ability to educate people well enough to make decisions affecting the survival of our species as we know it. To me its very similar to taking no action on climate change because the market will eventually handle it. It all assumes sufficient stability for sufficient time and that may not be a safe assumption anymore. I never suggested the government specifically take action to say who can say what, but that doesn't mean that there can't be an open ranking system used by search engines and social media to people from accidentally falling into fake news through a ad that looks like a link from a more reputable location.
kafkaesq 10y ago
What do you propose as an alternative? Simply allow people to intentionally mislead people for their own gain? Sure, why not? It's pretty much the state of things as they always have been, ever since mass media became a thing. Not that there weren't any downsides, to this approach. Buch the point is that the "cure" in this case would be much worse than the disease. I'm surprised actually that someone like Angie -- who not too long ago live in a system where a centralized authority determined, on a daily basis, and with absolute power of discretion which news items were considered "real", legitimate, and newsworthy; and which ones were "fake" -- doesn't immediately and instinctively see how ludicrous such countermeasures are, and how easily (and inevitably) they will be abused.

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.

Dylan16807 10y ago
> one of the founding principles No, it's an ugly consequence of the principle that probably can't be disentangled from it.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
> 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. Actually, it was a result of treating things like the airwaves as a public trust and imposing stuff like the Fairness Doctrine.
okreallywtf 10y ago
>Democracy can survive people lying. It can't survive granting the government the ability to determine which "facts" the people are allowed to believe. This only holds assuming we have time to work things out naturally - unfortunately that is not the case at least in the context of climate change to ignore all other issues. Of course if you drink the fake-news coolaid you'll debate that climate change is happening or that its not man-made or wherever the goal-post has been moved to today. Hey everyone's opinion is the same though right? Your fact is my fiction! We're not talking the esoterics of democratic theory, we're talking the basic ability to educate people well enough to make decisions affecting the survival of our species as we know it. To me its very similar to taking no action on climate change because the market will eventually handle it. It all assumes sufficient stability for sufficient time and that may not be a safe assumption anymore. I never suggested the government specifically take action to say who can say what, but that doesn't mean that there can't be an open ranking system used by search engines and social media to people from accidentally falling into fake news through a ad that looks like a link from a more reputable location.

kafkaesq 10y ago

What do you propose as an alternative? Simply allow people to intentionally mislead people for their own gain? Sure, why not? It's pretty much the state of things as they always have been, ever since mass media became a thing. Not that there weren't any downsides, to this approach. Buch the point is that the "cure" in this case would be much worse than the disease. I'm surprised actually that someone like Angie -- who not too long ago live in a system where a centralized authority determined, on a daily basis, and with absolute power of discretion which news items were considered "real", legitimate, and newsworthy; and which ones were "fake" -- doesn't immediately and instinctively see how ludicrous such countermeasures are, and how easily (and inevitably) they will be abused.