3 ms·

Anybody else get the feeling that Germany is joining the newfangled "fake news is really bad" brigade because Merkel is now being roasted mercilessly online due

Anybody else get the feeling that Germany is joining the newfangled "fake news is really bad" brigade because Merkel is now being roasted mercilessly online due to recent events and Germany has elections coming up soon? It wouldn't be hard to manipulate public opinion if you literally decided what news would be allowed to be displayed on social media. Who decides what news is true or not? Is that healthy for a free country? What realistic option is there for companies to immediately comply to any government demands or face financial death?

MichaelBurge 10y ago
Clinton pushed the same narrative her first speech after losing, and the Wikileaks show her talking with Merkel. I think there's a group of world leaders that get together and decide to push the same story at the same time. There was a real problem with clickbait sites that generated entirely fake stories. But let's be honest: Politicians aren't going to let a term with such rhetorical kick like "fake news" be used to narrowly target a few rogue clickbait farms in Algeria. Once they've convinced people there's a problem, they'll use the term much more broadly whenever it benefits them. This is no different than using "national security" as a pretense for passing a surveillance law. "Never let a good crisis go to waste" and all.
- throwaway420 10y ago
  There are different types of "fake news". When the establishment is talking about "fake news", I don't think they truly give one tiny hoot about a clickbait site that invents an entirely fake story out of thin air. In fact, I think it's actually beneficial to them because then it becomes easier to discredit many other ideas by association. I think they're far more concerned with labeling actual true stories from the alternative non-corporate controlled media as fake news. I think this is what the censorship is all about.

MichaelBurge 10y ago

Clinton pushed the same narrative her first speech after losing, and the Wikileaks show her talking with Merkel. I think there's a group of world leaders that get together and decide to push the same story at the same time. There was a real problem with clickbait sites that generated entirely fake stories. But let's be honest: Politicians aren't going to let a term with such rhetorical kick like "fake news" be used to narrowly target a few rogue clickbait farms in Algeria. Once they've convinced people there's a problem, they'll use the term much more broadly whenever it benefits them. This is no different than using "national security" as a pretense for passing a surveillance law. "Never let a good crisis go to waste" and all.

throwaway420 10y ago
There are different types of "fake news". When the establishment is talking about "fake news", I don't think they truly give one tiny hoot about a clickbait site that invents an entirely fake story out of thin air. In fact, I think it's actually beneficial to them because then it becomes easier to discredit many other ideas by association. I think they're far more concerned with labeling actual true stories from the alternative non-corporate controlled media as fake news. I think this is what the censorship is all about.