5 ms·

You'll notice so many posts here that deny the existence of fake news, or attempt to redefine it as "bias." Frankly, I find it disturbing that so many well edu

You'll notice so many posts here that deny the existence of fake news, or attempt to redefine it as "bias." Frankly, I find it disturbing that so many well educated people aren't able to objectively think about an actually objective problem. The fake news that started the concept of "fake news" is not a subjective problem. The problem is literal invention of facts not even related to reality, combined with the mass distribution of those invented facts. It is a problem of mass deception. The classic example: Millions of people shared a post saying the Pope endorsed Donald Trump. This is objectively false. It's not about liberal vs. conservative. It's not about whether it fits your worldview or not. It simply isn't true. During the election there were so many literally false stories that got a very large amount of attention. That is the problem. And yet, so many people seem to think it is a political issue. It's a sad world we live in where even objective facts no longer matter. I think that is why so many people are terrified of the direction things are headed.

lend000 10y ago
> You'll notice so many posts here that deny the existence of fake news, or attempt to redefine it as "bias." That's a hyperbole -- most of the dissidents here do not deny that completely fake stories occur, but express valid concerns about what kind of things will be labeled as facts or not. Based on what we've already seen (the WaPo list, for example), there are publications they would like to censor with very good track records, including the "Ron Paul Liberty Report." Production budget aside, that's often the first source that reports on interesting new bills submitted to the House, such as the recent pre-authorization for invasion of Iran bill. This is not a fake fact -- you can see it on the House website. And there aren't supporting examples of fakeness provided by WaPo for their list, even though I could find numerous factual errors by WaPo or NYT, like the power grid hacking or Aleppo (usually fixed within a few days, but still). And of course, there's the fact that powerful propaganda does not need to stem from provably false facts -- it uses selection/omission of stories and crafting heavily-opinionated narratives to 'mislead.' That is just as concerning as fake facts, and a poor attempt to stem the latter would most likely end up stifling unpopular opinions and further empower the propaganda you see on major sources like WaPo/FoxNews.
fullshark 10y ago
I think the issue is a lot of the complaints about fake news are not of the objectively false stuff, but of the kind where you report what some crackpot analyst says. It's objectively true that "PERSON X THINKS THIS" but it used to be journalists wouldn't print that because it was nonsense. For an example of this consider the Trump intelligence report or the Pizzagate analysis. In the internet age a lot of these analysts are getting a voice and people with agendas are listening/promoting those voices.
- jartelt 10y ago
  It is true that when the average crackpot thinks something, it is not newsworthy. However, when the POTUS thinks (and especially when he tweets) something crazy/abnormal, it is newsworthy. If the leader of the US believes something crazy, the citizens should hear about it. Unfortunately, Trump doesn't like to be made fun of by the media so he just lies and says it's fake news when someone reports on his abnormal tweets and comments.
general_ai 10y ago
Millions of people have branded Trump as a "homophobe", where in reality he's the most pro-gay president of all time at the start of his term. Not just republican, any US president, period. Obama was against gay marriage before he was (reluctantly) for it. Trump sees no problem with it. Same with xenophobia: a xenophobe doesn't marry an immigrant. Same with misogyny: a misogynist does not appoint a woman to run his campaign. Same with antisemitism: his daughter converted to Judaism to marry a Jew, who also had a hand in running his campaign. Same with racism: he wasn't in any way called "racist" by anybody until he ran for president, and there are numerous photos of him with prominent members of the black community dating back decades. Much of the slander we've seen about the guy is totally fake. It seems HRC had very little of substance other than the pussy grab tape (note that there's no evidence it was anything other than talk), so they just made shit up and told CNN to air it 24x7. And CNN gladly obliged. When the same people that manufactured and spread fake news start lecturing us about the harm of fake news, I just facepalm.
- kmicklas 10y ago
  This is the kind of satire that will dupe any attempts at AI classification.
  - jquery 10y ago
    That's a funny put-down, but inappropriate and stifles real debate. I think there is a lot of evidence Trump is not many of things people claim him to be. And there's evidence for the alternative. It depends on the evidence you find more believable. Here's an excellent article making a compelling argument that Trump is not a racist/homophobe/etc, or at least that calling him such things prematurely undermines the whole argument if he actually does terrible things. Once you call someone racist, it's hard to call them something worse and people tune out. http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wo...
    - willstrafach 10y ago
      The initial post contained defenses which could very easily be broken down by much stronger opposing points for each. I think that is why it was assumed to be a joke.
nshepperd 10y ago
A non-trump example. Millions of people shared a post saying that the police were using facebook check-ins to "track" protesters at Standing Rock, and encouraging people to check in at that location in order to "help". Of course, this makes no sense at all when you think about it and was indeed totally made up.

lend000 10y ago

> You'll notice so many posts here that deny the existence of fake news, or attempt to redefine it as "bias." That's a hyperbole -- most of the dissidents here do not deny that completely fake stories occur, but express valid concerns about what kind of things will be labeled as facts or not. Based on what we've already seen (the WaPo list, for example), there are publications they would like to censor with very good track records, including the "Ron Paul Liberty Report." Production budget aside, that's often the first source that reports on interesting new bills submitted to the House, such as the recent pre-authorization for invasion of Iran bill. This is not a fake fact -- you can see it on the House website. And there aren't supporting examples of fakeness provided by WaPo for their list, even though I could find numerous factual errors by WaPo or NYT, like the power grid hacking or Aleppo (usually fixed within a few days, but still). And of course, there's the fact that powerful propaganda does not need to stem from provably false facts -- it uses selection/omission of stories and crafting heavily-opinionated narratives to 'mislead.' That is just as concerning as fake facts, and a poor attempt to stem the latter would most likely end up stifling unpopular opinions and further empower the propaganda you see on major sources like WaPo/FoxNews.

fullshark 10y ago

I think the issue is a lot of the complaints about fake news are not of the objectively false stuff, but of the kind where you report what some crackpot analyst says. It's objectively true that "PERSON X THINKS THIS" but it used to be journalists wouldn't print that because it was nonsense. For an example of this consider the Trump intelligence report or the Pizzagate analysis. In the internet age a lot of these analysts are getting a voice and people with agendas are listening/promoting those voices.

jartelt 10y ago
It is true that when the average crackpot thinks something, it is not newsworthy. However, when the POTUS thinks (and especially when he tweets) something crazy/abnormal, it is newsworthy. If the leader of the US believes something crazy, the citizens should hear about it. Unfortunately, Trump doesn't like to be made fun of by the media so he just lies and says it's fake news when someone reports on his abnormal tweets and comments.

general_ai 10y ago

Millions of people have branded Trump as a "homophobe", where in reality he's the most pro-gay president of all time at the start of his term. Not just republican, any US president, period. Obama was against gay marriage before he was (reluctantly) for it. Trump sees no problem with it. Same with xenophobia: a xenophobe doesn't marry an immigrant. Same with misogyny: a misogynist does not appoint a woman to run his campaign. Same with antisemitism: his daughter converted to Judaism to marry a Jew, who also had a hand in running his campaign. Same with racism: he wasn't in any way called "racist" by anybody until he ran for president, and there are numerous photos of him with prominent members of the black community dating back decades. Much of the slander we've seen about the guy is totally fake. It seems HRC had very little of substance other than the pussy grab tape (note that there's no evidence it was anything other than talk), so they just made shit up and told CNN to air it 24x7. And CNN gladly obliged. When the same people that manufactured and spread fake news start lecturing us about the harm of fake news, I just facepalm.

kmicklas 10y ago
This is the kind of satire that will dupe any attempts at AI classification.
- jquery 10y ago
  That's a funny put-down, but inappropriate and stifles real debate. I think there is a lot of evidence Trump is not many of things people claim him to be. And there's evidence for the alternative. It depends on the evidence you find more believable. Here's an excellent article making a compelling argument that Trump is not a racist/homophobe/etc, or at least that calling him such things prematurely undermines the whole argument if he actually does terrible things. Once you call someone racist, it's hard to call them something worse and people tune out. http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wo...
  - willstrafach 10y ago
    The initial post contained defenses which could very easily be broken down by much stronger opposing points for each. I think that is why it was assumed to be a joke.

nshepperd 10y ago

A non-trump example. Millions of people shared a post saying that the police were using facebook check-ins to "track" protesters at Standing Rock, and encouraging people to check in at that location in order to "help". Of course, this makes no sense at all when you think about it and was indeed totally made up.