3 ms·

If someone says they believe a story and spreads the story as factual news to their friends, it doesn't really matter whether they actually believed it in the f

by learc83 10y ago

If someone says they believe a story and spreads the story as factual news to their friends, it doesn't really matter whether they actually believed it in the first place. Eventually the story spreads to people who actually believe it and will take action based on it. A large percentage of my family truly believes Bernie Sanders drives a $100k sports car because they read it on Facebook. They believe that Obama's mother-in-law is getting a pension for acting as the White House babysitter. Some of them even believe that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. They believe these things because of they read fake news stories on Facebook. It's self reinforcing. They vaguely dislike someone; they read a fake negative story on facebook about the person; they believe it because they already dislike them; they dislike the person more because of the fake news story; they read more outrageous fake news; they believe it because it fits their now more biased opinion of the person. It's keeps going like this until they hate the person and will believe almost anything negative you say about them.

smsm42 10y ago
How do you know they "spread it as factual news"? As far as I know, Facebook doesn't have separate setting for "spreading as factual news" vs "spreading as funny meme trash-talking that idiot I hate". It looks exactly the same. > It's keeps going like this until they hate the person and will believe almost anything negative you say about them. Like that "Trump is afraid of stairs" story that CNN featured recently? ;)
- learc83 10y ago
  It's usually pretty easy to tell the difference if you're a human and not a computer program. If I say "smsm42's mom is fat", or "smsm42 is an idiot" that's trash talking. If I say "smsm42 defrauded the US government by awarding his mother-in-law a pension for watching his kids", or "smsm42 passed a law that give Muslims free health insurance because their religion prevents them from paying for it", or "smsm42 wasn't born in the country he says he was born in and I have proof that his birth certificate is fake"--that's fake news.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    Nope. These are just different kinds of trash-talking for different audience. Somebody thinks an ultimate shame is to have a fat mom, and somebody thinks it's being corrupt or being a fraud or being of wrong religion. Insults should match the audience, otherwise it doesn't work - in a culture where being fat is considered a sign of prosperity, the insult should be "yo momma is so thin".
    - learc83 10y ago
      There is a difference between an insult that is clearly meant to be farcical (or an opinion/value judgment like "you're an idiot"), and damaging false statements. In fact courts adjudicate the difference pretty much anytime someone brings a defamation suit. If you are unable to tell the difference, you can conduct this (potentially costly) experiment to see that other humans can usually tell the difference. 1. Find a civil litigation lawyer in your city. Let's call her Alice A. Attorney. 2. Take out an add in your local newspaper that says "Alice A. Attorney's mama is so fat that she gave Dracula diabetes." 3. Take out another add the next week that says "Alice A. Attorney is not a US citizen so her license to practice law is invalid. In addition she is untrustworthy because she embezzled money from her previous employer." 4. Wait and see which ad you're eventually forced to pay damages because of.
      - smsm42 10y ago
        > There is a difference between an insult that is clearly meant to be farcical (or an opinion/value judgment like "you're an idiot"), and damaging false statements. Not as much as you'd like it to be. In court, surely, maybe, though in court to get anything actionable you have to prove actual malice, which is not easy, and very very hard if one talks about a public figure. If you are just shooting breeze on the internet, it would be super-hard to prove any malicious intent. But that's what we're talking in courtroom. A place specifically designed to have procedures to rule between true and false. Most people outside of the courtroom do not behave like this. They won't apply "lack of reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of evidence" if they see an article trashing Trump (or Hillary, if you swing that way) on the internet. They won't research and double-triple-check the sources and quotes. They'd just share it because it feels good.

by learc83 10y ago

smsm42 10y ago

How do you know they "spread it as factual news"? As far as I know, Facebook doesn't have separate setting for "spreading as factual news" vs "spreading as funny meme trash-talking that idiot I hate". It looks exactly the same. > It's keeps going like this until they hate the person and will believe almost anything negative you say about them. Like that "Trump is afraid of stairs" story that CNN featured recently? ;)

learc83 10y ago
It's usually pretty easy to tell the difference if you're a human and not a computer program. If I say "smsm42's mom is fat", or "smsm42 is an idiot" that's trash talking. If I say "smsm42 defrauded the US government by awarding his mother-in-law a pension for watching his kids", or "smsm42 passed a law that give Muslims free health insurance because their religion prevents them from paying for it", or "smsm42 wasn't born in the country he says he was born in and I have proof that his birth certificate is fake"--that's fake news.
- smsm42 10y ago
  Nope. These are just different kinds of trash-talking for different audience. Somebody thinks an ultimate shame is to have a fat mom, and somebody thinks it's being corrupt or being a fraud or being of wrong religion. Insults should match the audience, otherwise it doesn't work - in a culture where being fat is considered a sign of prosperity, the insult should be "yo momma is so thin".
  - learc83 10y ago
    There is a difference between an insult that is clearly meant to be farcical (or an opinion/value judgment like "you're an idiot"), and damaging false statements. In fact courts adjudicate the difference pretty much anytime someone brings a defamation suit. If you are unable to tell the difference, you can conduct this (potentially costly) experiment to see that other humans can usually tell the difference. 1. Find a civil litigation lawyer in your city. Let's call her Alice A. Attorney. 2. Take out an add in your local newspaper that says "Alice A. Attorney's mama is so fat that she gave Dracula diabetes." 3. Take out another add the next week that says "Alice A. Attorney is not a US citizen so her license to practice law is invalid. In addition she is untrustworthy because she embezzled money from her previous employer." 4. Wait and see which ad you're eventually forced to pay damages because of.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      > There is a difference between an insult that is clearly meant to be farcical (or an opinion/value judgment like "you're an idiot"), and damaging false statements. Not as much as you'd like it to be. In court, surely, maybe, though in court to get anything actionable you have to prove actual malice, which is not easy, and very very hard if one talks about a public figure. If you are just shooting breeze on the internet, it would be super-hard to prove any malicious intent. But that's what we're talking in courtroom. A place specifically designed to have procedures to rule between true and false. Most people outside of the courtroom do not behave like this. They won't apply "lack of reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of evidence" if they see an article trashing Trump (or Hillary, if you swing that way) on the internet. They won't research and double-triple-check the sources and quotes. They'd just share it because it feels good.