4 ms·

This discussion around 'fake news' shows clearly but also shockingly how governments lost the ability to control communication. It's not about deciding if a new

This discussion around 'fake news' shows clearly but also shockingly how governments lost the ability to control communication. It's not about deciding if a news is real, propaganda or fake—the borders are blurry anyway—it's about who is controlling the communication. The communication to its people is the one of the most important power a ruler has. Around 50 years ago, governments could influence their nations with state-owned mass media such as tv and radio. Then, private tv and radio came, then the Internet, they lost control but not much, they still could control or subtly influence communication in large part. Now with FB, it seems that they lost any control and new right-wing parties are way more experienced in employing social media for their needs. Instead of pushing millions into social media and government-driven bot armies, they whine and call for censorship. I think FB won't do anything, what can Germany do? FB's power is much bigger than Germany's government and legislative. Which is a disturbing thought.

Yetanfou 10y ago
FB is not the main avenue for news outside of governmental control. If anything, FB makes it easier to control the flow of news for governments due to the centralised nature and the fact that FB has a commercial interest in remaining on a relatively good footing with the powers-that-be. Which is why FB cooperates in 'fighting "fake news"' (yes, double scare quotes here as both the 'fight' as well as the 'fake news' are of questionable nature). Anyone can start a 'news site', either using one of the established blogging platforms or by renting some space on the 'net and running their own site. That this avenue is mostly taken by what is considered 'the political right wing' is not surprising, given that the majority of established media in a large part of Europe (which is where you'll find the largest proliferation of 'alternative' media) is considered to be on the 'left side' of the political spectrum. In some countries this development has gone so far that a majority of people don't consider established media to be a reliable and trustworthy source of news, e.g. Sweden [1]. Some of the 'alternative' media strive to uphold traditional standards of journalism, often as a reaction to the demise of those traditions in the established media. Others just try to push their message using whatever they think will stick, standards and traditions be damned. The former are a valuable addition to the media landscape and could prove vital in the sight of extending governmental control of media. The latter are at best a nuisance, at worst a factor in destabilising society. While they may consider themselves to be 'patriotic citizens defending their freedom', they only serve to reinforce stereotypes of whatever political movement they represent. I for one am glad that the 'net makes it possible to publish outside of governmental control. I also know enough not to blindly trust whatever is published, be it through 'alternative' or 'established' media. In the 'fight' against 'fake news' the question soon rises who gets to define which news is 'fake' and which is 'true'. The government ('ministry of truth'...)? The established media (whose political bent was the original reason for alternative media to arise in the first place)? Who will watch the watchers? [1] http://www.svt.se/kultur/ny-studie-halften-lockas-inte-av-traditionella-medier http://www.svt.se/kultur/ny-studie-halften-lockas-inte-av-tr... (in Swedish)

Yetanfou 10y ago

FB is not the main avenue for news outside of governmental control. If anything, FB makes it easier to control the flow of news for governments due to the centralised nature and the fact that FB has a commercial interest in remaining on a relatively good footing with the powers-that-be. Which is why FB cooperates in 'fighting "fake news"' (yes, double scare quotes here as both the 'fight' as well as the 'fake news' are of questionable nature). Anyone can start a 'news site', either using one of the established blogging platforms or by renting some space on the 'net and running their own site. That this avenue is mostly taken by what is considered 'the political right wing' is not surprising, given that the majority of established media in a large part of Europe (which is where you'll find the largest proliferation of 'alternative' media) is considered to be on the 'left side' of the political spectrum. In some countries this development has gone so far that a majority of people don't consider established media to be a reliable and trustworthy source of news, e.g. Sweden [1]. Some of the 'alternative' media strive to uphold traditional standards of journalism, often as a reaction to the demise of those traditions in the established media. Others just try to push their message using whatever they think will stick, standards and traditions be damned. The former are a valuable addition to the media landscape and could prove vital in the sight of extending governmental control of media. The latter are at best a nuisance, at worst a factor in destabilising society. While they may consider themselves to be 'patriotic citizens defending their freedom', they only serve to reinforce stereotypes of whatever political movement they represent. I for one am glad that the 'net makes it possible to publish outside of governmental control. I also know enough not to blindly trust whatever is published, be it through 'alternative' or 'established' media. In the 'fight' against 'fake news' the question soon rises who gets to define which news is 'fake' and which is 'true'. The government ('ministry of truth'...)? The established media (whose political bent was the original reason for alternative media to arise in the first place)? Who will watch the watchers? [1] http://www.svt.se/kultur/ny-studie-halften-lockas-inte-av-traditionella-medier http://www.svt.se/kultur/ny-studie-halften-lockas-inte-av-tr... (in Swedish)