5 ms·

True, there's nothing stopping any random person from doing the same thing. However, no random person has the same incentives as a foreign government to pollut

True, there's nothing stopping any random person from doing the same thing. However, no random person has the same incentives as a foreign government to pollute dialog on political matters. The personal gain or sense of satisfaction that an individual might get from launching a disinformation campaign pales in comparison to the economic and ideological pressure that motivates heads of state to do the same thing. So it seems far less likely that we're under threat from random individuals than from foreign governments. Also, how are you going to "fix" people being dumb? We've been trying to figure that one out for a long time and it's going to take a while to make progress on that front.

grandalf 9y ago
> to pollute dialog on political matters. Please explain where the "pollution" occurred. Over the past few years I have read RT from time to time and most of the stories were simply about negative aspects of American life that do not get much exposure/focus from American news organizations because they are not flattering. Things like the Flint Michigan water crisis, other areas of failed infrastructure, etc. For many Americans, reading RT would be likely to create valuable awareness of important issues and make that person more likely to vote in his/her own best interest in the next election. To say that RT has "polluted" the marketplace of ideas you really have to back that statement up with what you think "pure" ideas are that Americans should be exposed to before casting their vote.
- DanBC 9y ago
  Russia Today are well known as a fake news org. Are you reading the Russian language articles they put out? https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage_en/32408/Don't%20be%20deceived:%20EU%20acts%20against%20fake%20news%20and%20disinformation https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage_en... https://euvsdisinfo.eu https://euvsdisinfo.eu
  - grandalf 9y ago
    I am reluctant to use a buzzword like "fake news" when I have been reading Chomsky's detailed critiques of American newspapers for a long time and have been (for a long time) well aware of the significant political and corporate motivations behind news organizations (print and television). What are the "memes" (per Dawkins' definition) that RT intends to publicize? Which of those are false, which are true but misleading, and which are actually true? Does publishing stories that might make some voters angry with the status quo constitute being "fake news"? Is RT "fake news" simply because of its origin? Or because of its content? Or because of the timing of its content? Specific examples please. Under whatever definition you would use to classify RT as fake news, are any American news orgs (NYT, WaPo, CNN, Fox News, WSJ, etc.) also fake news? How do you draw the line? Is it based on content that is false, true but misleading, or true? Do you believe that certain ideas are dangerous for Americans to believe? Should reading the writings of some of history's dictators be banned? Should violent music lyrics be banned?
    - gandhium 9y ago
      > Specific examples please. All their articles related to Ukraine: Donbass, Crimea, MH-17. They're repeating same lies designed by Kremlin hosts.
      - grandalf 9y ago
        Why would you expect a state-funded news agency to dissent from the official positions of its government on key political matters. I'm not looking to RT for useful coverage of issues in the Ukraine, but when it writes about the Flint Water crisis or police brutality, it might actually have a less biased view than the American press. I hope this isn't actually the case but I fear it may be.
        DonHopkins 9y ago
        Are you saying that RT has less biased and better coverage of the Flint water crisis than Rachel Maddow? Specific examples, please: Exactly what have they gotten right that she got wrong? What have they covered that she missed? When have they brought attention to it when she ignored it? Who have they interviewed who she wouldn't invite to her show?

grandalf 9y ago

> to pollute dialog on political matters. Please explain where the "pollution" occurred. Over the past few years I have read RT from time to time and most of the stories were simply about negative aspects of American life that do not get much exposure/focus from American news organizations because they are not flattering. Things like the Flint Michigan water crisis, other areas of failed infrastructure, etc. For many Americans, reading RT would be likely to create valuable awareness of important issues and make that person more likely to vote in his/her own best interest in the next election. To say that RT has "polluted" the marketplace of ideas you really have to back that statement up with what you think "pure" ideas are that Americans should be exposed to before casting their vote.

DanBC 9y ago
Russia Today are well known as a fake news org. Are you reading the Russian language articles they put out? https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage_en/32408/Don't%20be%20deceived:%20EU%20acts%20against%20fake%20news%20and%20disinformation https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage_en... https://euvsdisinfo.eu https://euvsdisinfo.eu
- grandalf 9y ago
  I am reluctant to use a buzzword like "fake news" when I have been reading Chomsky's detailed critiques of American newspapers for a long time and have been (for a long time) well aware of the significant political and corporate motivations behind news organizations (print and television). What are the "memes" (per Dawkins' definition) that RT intends to publicize? Which of those are false, which are true but misleading, and which are actually true? Does publishing stories that might make some voters angry with the status quo constitute being "fake news"? Is RT "fake news" simply because of its origin? Or because of its content? Or because of the timing of its content? Specific examples please. Under whatever definition you would use to classify RT as fake news, are any American news orgs (NYT, WaPo, CNN, Fox News, WSJ, etc.) also fake news? How do you draw the line? Is it based on content that is false, true but misleading, or true? Do you believe that certain ideas are dangerous for Americans to believe? Should reading the writings of some of history's dictators be banned? Should violent music lyrics be banned?
  - gandhium 9y ago
    > Specific examples please. All their articles related to Ukraine: Donbass, Crimea, MH-17. They're repeating same lies designed by Kremlin hosts.
    - grandalf 9y ago
      Why would you expect a state-funded news agency to dissent from the official positions of its government on key political matters. I'm not looking to RT for useful coverage of issues in the Ukraine, but when it writes about the Flint Water crisis or police brutality, it might actually have a less biased view than the American press. I hope this isn't actually the case but I fear it may be.
      - DonHopkins 9y ago
        Are you saying that RT has less biased and better coverage of the Flint water crisis than Rachel Maddow? Specific examples, please: Exactly what have they gotten right that she got wrong? What have they covered that she missed? When have they brought attention to it when she ignored it? Who have they interviewed who she wouldn't invite to her show?