3 ms·

The old word of "fake news" is propaganda. The western media is also full with it, usually because they are sponsored by big companies or are linked with politi

The old word of "fake news" is propaganda. The western media is also full with it, usually because they are sponsored by big companies or are linked with political parties. Both sides use propaganda, and it is hard to trust the news today with anything. Currently everyone uses fake news to mark some information that they don't like. The article starts with a wrong position. "Fake news" was not invented by Trump, but it was introduced during the election by "PropOrNot". The website, which is probably propaganda by itself, stated that many independent media were Russian propaganda. This unfounded claim was used to help the democratic candidate, after wikileaks published material about pay-to-play and media-bias. Afterwards the russian propaganda idea was fake news, because there has been no evidence that the election has been strongly manipulated by Russian bots or operatives. Instead researchers find people who have strong opinions and have lots of time to post stuff. The article has a good point: "If you are convinced that some claim is true, ask yourself why. Is it because you have credible evidence that the claim is true, or is it just because you’ve encountered the claim over and over?" In this I see the media repeating the "Russian hacked the election" thing, for which there is no real evidence. The reports from all agencies only based this idea on rumours. The wikileak documents themselves seem to be downloaded on a USB drive, and not via the internetz. But can we withstand this "fake news", when there is so much support for it? And why is no-one talking about the pay-to-play problem. It is likely a problem of the political system, not just a candidate. I agree with the solution against fake news. We should have credible evidence. But these should not be "public service announcements". These are usually linked to sponsors or political parties. Most people already disagree on what sources can be trusted. For example I trust wikileaks a lot more than many other people. They stand for freedom of information, unlike their opposition who likes to destroy relevant information (like torture records or emails). And freedom of information is exactly what is needed for this whole problem. No information should be hidden in a democracy. And that is how we really should solve the fake news /propaganda problem: All relevant information should be available. Just like every experiment should be repeatable in science.

th0ma5 9y ago
I wonder about the technique of a "shit sandwich" where you surrounded your propoganda (The Russian investigation is BS) with otherwise reasonable content.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  Yep, I noticed it too. Clever. Specifically, we do have evidence that Russia successfully penetrated some US state voter rolls: http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/372816-russia-successfully-penetrated-voter-rolls-in-some-states-report http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/372816-russia-succes...
wybiral 9y ago
> Afterwards the russian propaganda idea was fake news, because there has been no evidence that the election has been strongly manipulated by Russian bots or operatives. With most propaganda there is some truth. There is some pretty good evidence to suggest that Russia was pumping in propaganda by using bots, trolls, and leaks. But most of it seems unrelated to the election. So it's an oversimplification to act like none of that was happening. But likewise to assume that it was election-related.
- akjetma 9y ago
  This is exactly what the article is talking about. A lingering sense of truthiness.
  - wybiral 9y ago
    It's annoying because people seem to polarize and pick one side or the other which complicates the fact that the truth is more of a mixture. Russia was hacking and using computational propaganda. But that doesn't mean it was targeting the election. There are many variables and they aren't all mutually exclusive.
keenerd 9y ago
> The old word of "fake news" is propaganda. No, they are different by a matter of degree. Propaganda is all about spin, context, and stretching the truth. Stuff that actually happened but is presented in a mis-represented and misleading fashion. Fake news is completely fabricated and entirely fictional.
- bryanrasmussen 9y ago
  lots of propaganda is completely faked, especially in controlled populations when you don't have to worry about following real events, you can just make them up to get the reaction you want.
- wybiral 9y ago
  I think it's more that "fake news" is a subset of propaganda. Propaganda can be fake news. But it can also be actual facts.
- gwright 9y ago
  I think that is an overly charitable view of the scope and variety of propaganda. The term "propaganda" is broad enough to include 100% accurate but carefully selected information, information based on facts but presented with spin or misleading framing, and 100% fictional information. In my mind, unifying idea of "propaganda" is that it is designed to mislead and cause the consumer to draw conclusions different than what might otherwise be reached via an accurate and truthful understanding of the issue. There is a notion of "intent" in propaganda that is absent or explained more by ignorance and naiveté in "fake news". The idea of "fake news" certainly overlaps with propaganda, but it also includes genuinely sloppy reporting and inaccuracy introduced by ignorance of the subject matter and a willingness to repeat and mimic true propaganda. The sloppiness and inaccuracy often occurs due to confirmation bias in the reporting process.
colordrops 9y ago
Thank you. One of the forms of "fake news" is that it's only small set of groups put it out.
cookiecaper 9y ago
Yes. Assange is an excellent barometer for this. When the info Wikileaks was publishing primarily supported the MSM agenda, he was a hero who was fighting for transparency. When it began to counteract that agenda, Assange was denigrated as "a patsy of Russian intelligence", and now "liberal" circles consider everything from Wikileaks tainted. It is especially sad, but not surprising, to see many in the hacker community fall for this blatant propaganda and turn their backs on Wikileaks and Assange so quickly. The entire playing field is rife with people looking to manipulate and exploit. That should be no mystery to anyone. They do it because it's what works. It's the same in every country. Try to run a noble campaign that exempts itself from the game and you end up like Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders, just as trying to run a business while exempting yourself from the game results in fourth-rate also-ran status. Trump pulled off an amazing feat in destroying this whole apparatus that was set against him (in many cases by simply beating them at their own game -- I'm not trying to claim that his side necessarily used clean tactics), and for anyone who thinks that can all be written off as "fake news" or the even more laughable "Russian interference", well, I have a bridge to sell you. That is a highly simplistic worldview that clearly demonstrates an overriding interest in allegiance to the Democrat tribe more than any serious consideration or critical thinking. To the extent that smart people are involved in propagating these myths, they are doing it for personal gain (see above about playing the game).

th0ma5 9y ago

I wonder about the technique of a "shit sandwich" where you surrounded your propoganda (The Russian investigation is BS) with otherwise reasonable content.

enraged_camel 9y ago
Yep, I noticed it too. Clever. Specifically, we do have evidence that Russia successfully penetrated some US state voter rolls: http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/372816-russia-successfully-penetrated-voter-rolls-in-some-states-report http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/372816-russia-succes...

wybiral 9y ago

> Afterwards the russian propaganda idea was fake news, because there has been no evidence that the election has been strongly manipulated by Russian bots or operatives. With most propaganda there is some truth. There is some pretty good evidence to suggest that Russia was pumping in propaganda by using bots, trolls, and leaks. But most of it seems unrelated to the election. So it's an oversimplification to act like none of that was happening. But likewise to assume that it was election-related.

akjetma 9y ago
This is exactly what the article is talking about. A lingering sense of truthiness.
- wybiral 9y ago
  It's annoying because people seem to polarize and pick one side or the other which complicates the fact that the truth is more of a mixture. Russia was hacking and using computational propaganda. But that doesn't mean it was targeting the election. There are many variables and they aren't all mutually exclusive.

keenerd 9y ago

> The old word of "fake news" is propaganda. No, they are different by a matter of degree. Propaganda is all about spin, context, and stretching the truth. Stuff that actually happened but is presented in a mis-represented and misleading fashion. Fake news is completely fabricated and entirely fictional.

bryanrasmussen 9y ago
lots of propaganda is completely faked, especially in controlled populations when you don't have to worry about following real events, you can just make them up to get the reaction you want.
wybiral 9y ago
I think it's more that "fake news" is a subset of propaganda. Propaganda can be fake news. But it can also be actual facts.
gwright 9y ago
I think that is an overly charitable view of the scope and variety of propaganda. The term "propaganda" is broad enough to include 100% accurate but carefully selected information, information based on facts but presented with spin or misleading framing, and 100% fictional information. In my mind, unifying idea of "propaganda" is that it is designed to mislead and cause the consumer to draw conclusions different than what might otherwise be reached via an accurate and truthful understanding of the issue. There is a notion of "intent" in propaganda that is absent or explained more by ignorance and naiveté in "fake news". The idea of "fake news" certainly overlaps with propaganda, but it also includes genuinely sloppy reporting and inaccuracy introduced by ignorance of the subject matter and a willingness to repeat and mimic true propaganda. The sloppiness and inaccuracy often occurs due to confirmation bias in the reporting process.

colordrops 9y ago

Thank you. One of the forms of "fake news" is that it's only small set of groups put it out.

cookiecaper 9y ago

Yes. Assange is an excellent barometer for this. When the info Wikileaks was publishing primarily supported the MSM agenda, he was a hero who was fighting for transparency. When it began to counteract that agenda, Assange was denigrated as "a patsy of Russian intelligence", and now "liberal" circles consider everything from Wikileaks tainted. It is especially sad, but not surprising, to see many in the hacker community fall for this blatant propaganda and turn their backs on Wikileaks and Assange so quickly. The entire playing field is rife with people looking to manipulate and exploit. That should be no mystery to anyone. They do it because it's what works. It's the same in every country. Try to run a noble campaign that exempts itself from the game and you end up like Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders, just as trying to run a business while exempting yourself from the game results in fourth-rate also-ran status. Trump pulled off an amazing feat in destroying this whole apparatus that was set against him (in many cases by simply beating them at their own game -- I'm not trying to claim that his side necessarily used clean tactics), and for anyone who thinks that can all be written off as "fake news" or the even more laughable "Russian interference", well, I have a bridge to sell you. That is a highly simplistic worldview that clearly demonstrates an overriding interest in allegiance to the Democrat tribe more than any serious consideration or critical thinking. To the extent that smart people are involved in propagating these myths, they are doing it for personal gain (see above about playing the game).