5 ms·

Do we want the current status quo, where misinformation runs rampant, filling eyeballs of people who don't know better with utterly fake news? Just look at thi

by orf 8y ago

Do we want the current status quo, where misinformation runs rampant, filling eyeballs of people who don't know better with utterly fake news? Just look at this[1] if you want proof that this is not sustainable. I wonder who benefited from and supported this... 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/technology/fake-news-online-disinformation.html?module=inline https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/technology/fake-news-onli...

ycmbntrthrwaway 8y ago
"Fake news" is simply an excuse for introducing government control of media, which leads to political censorship. Otherwise government would not care about it more than average citizen do.
- orf 8y ago
  Sure, but back in reality it's literal fake stories spread to a susceptible portion of the population by national or foreign interests to confirm their biases and influence their decisions. You can find numerous examples of this under the lists of Reddit accounts banned for this exact thing. "HILLARY IS PART OF A PEDOPHILE PIZZA GANG" "SETH RICHES HACKED THE DNC" "MUELLER IS INVESTIGATING HILLARY!!" "SOMETHING SOMETHING MUSLIMS ARE BAD"
krapp 8y ago
> Do we want the current status quo, where misinformation runs rampant, filling eyeballs of people who don't know better with utterly fake news? Do we want freedom of speech, and an even playing field for freedom of expression between common people and media conglomerates? Because that's what those look like, for better or worse.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Common people and media conglomerates are going to have an increasingly hard time getting heard over corporate astroturfing and foreign intelligence services.
- orf 8y ago
  We have that, it's the status quo. See above.
stale2002 8y ago
I'd rather have people decide for themselves what they do or do not read. If your arguments lose to fake news, then you should get better arguements.
- orf 8y ago
  Wishful thinking at best.
- mcphage 8y ago
  > If your arguments lose to fake news, then you should get better arguements. It’s not arguments vs fake news, it’s real news vs fake news. And that’s the difference between real news and fake news—if you don’t like your fake news, you can get new fake news, again and again and again, until you end up with a lie so beautiful it makes your heart sing. But you can’t get new real news, this is the only reality there is, no matter how ugly it is. But it’s still harsh reality, instead of a beautiful lie.

by orf 8y ago

ycmbntrthrwaway 8y ago

"Fake news" is simply an excuse for introducing government control of media, which leads to political censorship. Otherwise government would not care about it more than average citizen do.

orf 8y ago
Sure, but back in reality it's literal fake stories spread to a susceptible portion of the population by national or foreign interests to confirm their biases and influence their decisions. You can find numerous examples of this under the lists of Reddit accounts banned for this exact thing. "HILLARY IS PART OF A PEDOPHILE PIZZA GANG" "SETH RICHES HACKED THE DNC" "MUELLER IS INVESTIGATING HILLARY!!" "SOMETHING SOMETHING MUSLIMS ARE BAD"

krapp 8y ago

> Do we want the current status quo, where misinformation runs rampant, filling eyeballs of people who don't know better with utterly fake news? Do we want freedom of speech, and an even playing field for freedom of expression between common people and media conglomerates? Because that's what those look like, for better or worse.

pjc50 8y ago
Common people and media conglomerates are going to have an increasingly hard time getting heard over corporate astroturfing and foreign intelligence services.
orf 8y ago
We have that, it's the status quo. See above.

stale2002 8y ago

I'd rather have people decide for themselves what they do or do not read. If your arguments lose to fake news, then you should get better arguements.

orf 8y ago
Wishful thinking at best.
mcphage 8y ago
> If your arguments lose to fake news, then you should get better arguements. It’s not arguments vs fake news, it’s real news vs fake news. And that’s the difference between real news and fake news—if you don’t like your fake news, you can get new fake news, again and again and again, until you end up with a lie so beautiful it makes your heart sing. But you can’t get new real news, this is the only reality there is, no matter how ugly it is. But it’s still harsh reality, instead of a beautiful lie.