4 ms·

>This is a complex questions and there are no easy answers. What precisely is the question?

by wu-ikkyu 10y ago

mkaziz 10y ago
How should we handle the phenomenon of fake news being virally circulated in social media
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  The vaccination that provides herd immunity from viral nonsense is instruction in critical thinking skills. The treatment for misinformation and disinformation is genuine, accurate information. Censorship and regulation of information is absolutely the wrong way to handle it. If you ever grant any government the power to be final arbiter over what truth is, you deserve what will surely happen to you next.
derefr 10y ago
I believe the question is whether "news" is similar-enough in kind to "food" or "drugs" that it would make sense for the state to regulate it a bit, with the goal (like the "food" and "drugs" categories) of protecting people from their own mistakes. In the "food" and "drug" cases, the state does this because large corporations have far more resources available to be applied to the goal of fooling people into consuming something that might be harmful to them, than people have available to figure out they were fooled. The "news" case, though sometimes being similar to that, is also often very different: private individuals can be sources of news, news is often delivered without cost to the reader, and even news that is sourced from commercial institutions often reaches the majority of its readers through redistribution, without attribution, by private individuals (e.g. word of mouth; posting paraphrases on Facebook; etc.) So, leaving alone whether the same principle could apply to "news" (or whether it's consistently trumped by free speech concerns, etc.), the implementation of such a policy would be quite different, perhaps different enough as to make it unfeasible. That is a complex question.
- technotony 10y ago
  It's also complicated by the fact that news/journalism is the process we use to hold the government/powerful accountable. There are serious agency problems that would develop if the government (or any group) were to regulate it. This is why freedom of speech is such an important part of the constitution. Also the USA would not exist if it were not for fake news. It was the arrival of printing presses in Boston which allowed political groups to create fake news to inflame the revolution[1], so it's not always clear fake news is a bad thing (I'm English but I think the creation of democratic America is one of the greatest common goods the world has seen, though i'm sure we can debate that). [1] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Penguin_History_of_the_United_States_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Penguin_History_of_the_Uni...
- smogcutter 10y ago
  I believe the question is whether "news" is similar-enough in kind to "food" or "drugs" that it would make sense for the state to regulate it a bit, with the goal (like the "food" and "drugs" categories) of protecting people from their own mistakes. Yes! We could call it the Department of Truth, seeing as we don't have government ministries in the US.

>This is a complex questions and there are no easy answers. What precisely is the question?

mkaziz 10y ago

How should we handle the phenomenon of fake news being virally circulated in social media

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
logfromblammo 10y ago
The vaccination that provides herd immunity from viral nonsense is instruction in critical thinking skills. The treatment for misinformation and disinformation is genuine, accurate information. Censorship and regulation of information is absolutely the wrong way to handle it. If you ever grant any government the power to be final arbiter over what truth is, you deserve what will surely happen to you next.

derefr 10y ago

I believe the question is whether "news" is similar-enough in kind to "food" or "drugs" that it would make sense for the state to regulate it a bit, with the goal (like the "food" and "drugs" categories) of protecting people from their own mistakes. In the "food" and "drug" cases, the state does this because large corporations have far more resources available to be applied to the goal of fooling people into consuming something that might be harmful to them, than people have available to figure out they were fooled. The "news" case, though sometimes being similar to that, is also often very different: private individuals can be sources of news, news is often delivered without cost to the reader, and even news that is sourced from commercial institutions often reaches the majority of its readers through redistribution, without attribution, by private individuals (e.g. word of mouth; posting paraphrases on Facebook; etc.) So, leaving alone whether the same principle could apply to "news" (or whether it's consistently trumped by free speech concerns, etc.), the implementation of such a policy would be quite different, perhaps different enough as to make it unfeasible. That is a complex question.

technotony 10y ago
It's also complicated by the fact that news/journalism is the process we use to hold the government/powerful accountable. There are serious agency problems that would develop if the government (or any group) were to regulate it. This is why freedom of speech is such an important part of the constitution. Also the USA would not exist if it were not for fake news. It was the arrival of printing presses in Boston which allowed political groups to create fake news to inflame the revolution[1], so it's not always clear fake news is a bad thing (I'm English but I think the creation of democratic America is one of the greatest common goods the world has seen, though i'm sure we can debate that). [1] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Penguin_History_of_the_United_States_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Penguin_History_of_the_Uni...
smogcutter 10y ago
I believe the question is whether "news" is similar-enough in kind to "food" or "drugs" that it would make sense for the state to regulate it a bit, with the goal (like the "food" and "drugs" categories) of protecting people from their own mistakes. Yes! We could call it the Department of Truth, seeing as we don't have government ministries in the US.