4 ms·

> The mainstream press periodically waded into this swamp, but it only backfired. Its occasional fact checks got circulated as further evidence: If the media is

> The mainstream press periodically waded into this swamp, but it only backfired. Its occasional fact checks got circulated as further evidence: If the media is trying to debunk it, then the conspiracy must be true. To what extent, then, is fake news culpable? If people are hell-bent on rebuffing the facts, how significant of an effect could targeting fake news websites have? I have seen similar thing happen in India, particularly forums with right-wing majority. Anything that sounds remotely critical is quickly shot down as a product of biased media. Every decision centric to right-wing view, no matter how damaging, is regarded as unassailable and they would fight to death to defend it. Arguing with facts is almost a lost cause . It's been a long time since I was regular part of those forums, but, I do occasionally get to see their views on social media. No change whatsoever in their adverse opinions. I have a feeling that changing views of people for the most part is an uphill battle. Most people quickly associate their identity to a view and absolutely refuse to budge.

intended 10y ago
>To what extent, then, is fake news culpable? Definitions first, fake news is not bad headlines, or bad reporting. Fake news is specifically the creation of websites that look like legitimate news sites, with what look like legitimate articles, in order to generate click and ad revenue. SO a concrete example is the creation of a site called "Mercury Sun reviewer", with articles talking about how Hillary is about to be indicted. Its not really news, its fiction presented with a Headline and a byline. --- For India, we've not really been dealing with Fake news in this manner, aside from maybe whatsapp forwards and propaganda. The creation of masses of website just in order to convert people to click bots, doesnt happen. Internet penetration isnt high enough to afford it. --- So fake news IS an issue, BECAUSE people will believe it without checking. Its a monetization scheme which callously targets politics and power. The definition has been bent out of shape since it got mainstream. I think for the HN crowd, this definition should work and stick --- And I think I know those forums.
- fwn 10y ago
  So, according to this definition, standard news sites are incapable of ever producing fake news since their website also serve as legitimate news site? That does little more then raising the costs of implementing manipulative falsehoods by making the traditional news a gatekeeper.
  - belorn 10y ago
    No, a legitimate new site can also fall for the temptation to fabricate news in order to raise revenue or political favor (and for the person in charge, get a promotion/raise). The definition of fake news include intent, and the knowledge that the information is false. If you take away either of those two parts you don't get fake news.
  - empath75 10y ago
    Legitimate news organizations make mistakes or might be taken in by reporters with bad intentions, but as an organization, their intent and purpose isn't to produce fake news.
    - Neliquat 10y ago
      But if their intent is to profit, reguardless of ethics and facts? Sure 'real' news will be included, but mixed with questionable content. This is the real problem and situation.
  - intended 10y ago
    Yes. Bang on. Manipulation of truth - normal business as usual by news sites or bias. (Old news?) Fake prose with headlines for click farms (and now, political gain) - Fake news. essentially We've got an additional problem to deal with. If a news site decides to fabricate an article - thats fraud/libel and also fake news
- therpe1 10y ago
  You're right. The problem was never really fake news it was more that a significant chunk of the population has abandoned consensus reality. This is not a US problem either. I travel a lot and everywhere -- Europe, Japan, Australia, India, and the US -- you see the same exact pattern played over and over. Right-wing partisans lose all trust in the established media[1] after decades of right-wing politicians insisting that journalists can't be trusted. Right-wing partisans deliberately constructing their own parallel knowledge community and this enables right-wing politicians to speak, completely unchallenged, about events that never happened and facts that aren't facts[2]. The end-game, where right-wing voters, having isolated themselves completely, begin to insist on more and more outlandish conspiracies[3] until we're talking about secret pedophilia rings and the Pope conspiring with Hollywood Jews and millions of fake voters voting in the most closely watched election in the history of the planet. The interesting thing about this process is how deliberate and effective it is -- and I think, if you spend time on these right-wing forums, like yourself, you start to realize that nobody has been "duped," these people aren't fools, they are eager and willing participants in engineering a state of mass delusion. This was very apparent to Deleuze who grasped this very clearly: Reich is at his profoundest as a thinker when he refuses to accept ignorance or illusion on the part of the masses as an explanation of fascism, and demands an explanation that will take their desire into account, an explanation formulated in terms of desire: no, the masses were not innocent dupes; at a certain point, under a certain set of conditions, they wanted fascism, and it is this perversion of the desire of the masses that needs to be accounted for. (Deleuze and Guattari 1977: 29) Like the war on drugs it is nonsensical to focus on the supply when the demand is so great. A population addicted to fake news, a population that wants to be propagandized, a population that will gather online in forums and message boards and self-propagandize, is going to find and consume fake news and generate conspiracy theories no matter what. And I think a liberal society has to let this happen. It's not like China, the State is not going to deploy its own highly-trained, well-paid "media operatives" to find and destroy this alternative media ecosystem while lavishly funding the official media ecosystem. The whole point of liberal society is that desire is allowed to run its course. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/19/as-hyper-conservative-media-surged-republicans-trust-in-news-cratered/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/19/as-hyper-conservative-medi... [2] http://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php http://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-st... [3] https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.uuLM0E05o#.viPglnlXx https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became...
- kakapupu 10y ago
  > Fake news is specifically the creation of websites that look like legitimate news sites, with what look like legitimate articles, in order to generate click and ad revenue You tie the term "fake news" into "generating click and ad revenue"[1], but what you really mean is that "fake news" is anything that doesn't come from the government. If you don't think "Russians hacked the US election!" is "fake news", I've got a bridge to sell you. [1] Generating "click revenue" is bad I guess? Except when The New York Times do it.
- naaaaak 10y ago
  > Fake news is specifically the creation of websites that look like legitimate news sites, with what look like legitimate articles, in order to generate click and ad revenue. So CNN, NYT, WashPo, NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, etc.
  - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
    Also known as sponsored content.

intended 10y ago

>To what extent, then, is fake news culpable? Definitions first, fake news is not bad headlines, or bad reporting. Fake news is specifically the creation of websites that look like legitimate news sites, with what look like legitimate articles, in order to generate click and ad revenue. SO a concrete example is the creation of a site called "Mercury Sun reviewer", with articles talking about how Hillary is about to be indicted. Its not really news, its fiction presented with a Headline and a byline. --- For India, we've not really been dealing with Fake news in this manner, aside from maybe whatsapp forwards and propaganda. The creation of masses of website just in order to convert people to click bots, doesnt happen. Internet penetration isnt high enough to afford it. --- So fake news IS an issue, BECAUSE people will believe it without checking. Its a monetization scheme which callously targets politics and power. The definition has been bent out of shape since it got mainstream. I think for the HN crowd, this definition should work and stick --- And I think I know those forums.

fwn 10y ago
So, according to this definition, standard news sites are incapable of ever producing fake news since their website also serve as legitimate news site? That does little more then raising the costs of implementing manipulative falsehoods by making the traditional news a gatekeeper.
- belorn 10y ago
  No, a legitimate new site can also fall for the temptation to fabricate news in order to raise revenue or political favor (and for the person in charge, get a promotion/raise). The definition of fake news include intent, and the knowledge that the information is false. If you take away either of those two parts you don't get fake news.
- empath75 10y ago
  Legitimate news organizations make mistakes or might be taken in by reporters with bad intentions, but as an organization, their intent and purpose isn't to produce fake news.
  - Neliquat 10y ago
    But if their intent is to profit, reguardless of ethics and facts? Sure 'real' news will be included, but mixed with questionable content. This is the real problem and situation.
- intended 10y ago
  Yes. Bang on. Manipulation of truth - normal business as usual by news sites or bias. (Old news?) Fake prose with headlines for click farms (and now, political gain) - Fake news. essentially We've got an additional problem to deal with. If a news site decides to fabricate an article - thats fraud/libel and also fake news
therpe1 10y ago
You're right. The problem was never really fake news it was more that a significant chunk of the population has abandoned consensus reality. This is not a US problem either. I travel a lot and everywhere -- Europe, Japan, Australia, India, and the US -- you see the same exact pattern played over and over. Right-wing partisans lose all trust in the established media[1] after decades of right-wing politicians insisting that journalists can't be trusted. Right-wing partisans deliberately constructing their own parallel knowledge community and this enables right-wing politicians to speak, completely unchallenged, about events that never happened and facts that aren't facts[2]. The end-game, where right-wing voters, having isolated themselves completely, begin to insist on more and more outlandish conspiracies[3] until we're talking about secret pedophilia rings and the Pope conspiring with Hollywood Jews and millions of fake voters voting in the most closely watched election in the history of the planet. The interesting thing about this process is how deliberate and effective it is -- and I think, if you spend time on these right-wing forums, like yourself, you start to realize that nobody has been "duped," these people aren't fools, they are eager and willing participants in engineering a state of mass delusion. This was very apparent to Deleuze who grasped this very clearly: Reich is at his profoundest as a thinker when he refuses to accept ignorance or illusion on the part of the masses as an explanation of fascism, and demands an explanation that will take their desire into account, an explanation formulated in terms of desire: no, the masses were not innocent dupes; at a certain point, under a certain set of conditions, they wanted fascism, and it is this perversion of the desire of the masses that needs to be accounted for. (Deleuze and Guattari 1977: 29) Like the war on drugs it is nonsensical to focus on the supply when the demand is so great. A population addicted to fake news, a population that wants to be propagandized, a population that will gather online in forums and message boards and self-propagandize, is going to find and consume fake news and generate conspiracy theories no matter what. And I think a liberal society has to let this happen. It's not like China, the State is not going to deploy its own highly-trained, well-paid "media operatives" to find and destroy this alternative media ecosystem while lavishly funding the official media ecosystem. The whole point of liberal society is that desire is allowed to run its course. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/19/as-hyper-conservative-media-surged-republicans-trust-in-news-cratered/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/19/as-hyper-conservative-medi... [2] http://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php http://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-st... [3] https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.uuLM0E05o#.viPglnlXx https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became...
kakapupu 10y ago
> Fake news is specifically the creation of websites that look like legitimate news sites, with what look like legitimate articles, in order to generate click and ad revenue You tie the term "fake news" into "generating click and ad revenue"[1], but what you really mean is that "fake news" is anything that doesn't come from the government. If you don't think "Russians hacked the US election!" is "fake news", I've got a bridge to sell you. [1] Generating "click revenue" is bad I guess? Except when The New York Times do it.
naaaaak 10y ago
> Fake news is specifically the creation of websites that look like legitimate news sites, with what look like legitimate articles, in order to generate click and ad revenue. So CNN, NYT, WashPo, NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, etc.
- wu-ikkyu 10y ago
  Also known as sponsored content.