3 ms·

I would love to never hear that term again.

minimaxir 8y ago
Even after the end of the Trump presidency, you'll still hear the term "fake news." It's how language evolves, for better or for worse.
- code_duck 8y ago
  The phrase lost any realistic meaning after it was hijacked by Trump. This was his intent, since it originally meant the complete horseshit that propagandists were publishing to support Trump, spread by targeted Facebook news articles. I don’t expect to hear the term much by the time we don’t hear about him much.
sn41 8y ago
Yes, I prefer the term "rumor". But maybe that is not persuasive enough, hence the emphasis using "fake".
- jerkstate 8y ago
  I prefer the phrase "According to people familiar with their thinking"
- code_duck 8y ago
  ‘Unsubstantiated’ or ‘speculative’ would be fairly neutral
- code_duck 8y ago
  Where do you envision that term being applied exactly? It would make sense if the term was only leveled against specific news that is not based on openly verifiable fact. However, some individuals use it to refer to entire news organizations, seemingly ones that oppose their views, while not applying it to other organizations that clearly have the same or lower standards for verifiability.
wyldfire 8y ago
Much of the threads on this HN article seem to focus on different perspectives on the term itself, and what it means. Its contemporary usage primarily indicates websites which purport to be local news organizations which instead write fabricated articles with specific deceptive intent. Unfortunately, some have taken to hijacking the term to describe "articles/publications that I choose not to believe, or that I have come to believe are not credible." I think it's this ambiguity (depending on the speaker) that causes some distaste for this term. But I think we should instead choose to embrace the former meaning and reject the latter. Or if absolutely, positively necessary, consider the latter to be the true meaning and come up with a new term to describe the former. I don't think we need to throw up our hands in the face of this lexical challenge. To do so would forfeit all debates to some epistemological quandary.
- code_duck 8y ago
  “websites which purport to be local news organizations which instead write fabricated articles with specific deceptive intent” Great summary. My perception is that was the original usage, and I am okay with it. I wouldn’t say it’s the common usage now since the term was hijacked by the president to mean the latter definition, and his reach and influence beats that of those using the term in the original sense. I’m not sure if it can be rescued at this point, so I prefer the solution of ditching it.

Even after the end of the Trump presidency, you'll still hear the term "fake news." It's how language evolves, for better or for worse.

code_duck 8y ago
The phrase lost any realistic meaning after it was hijacked by Trump. This was his intent, since it originally meant the complete horseshit that propagandists were publishing to support Trump, spread by targeted Facebook news articles. I don’t expect to hear the term much by the time we don’t hear about him much.

sn41 8y ago

Yes, I prefer the term "rumor". But maybe that is not persuasive enough, hence the emphasis using "fake".

jerkstate 8y ago
I prefer the phrase "According to people familiar with their thinking"
code_duck 8y ago
‘Unsubstantiated’ or ‘speculative’ would be fairly neutral
code_duck 8y ago
Where do you envision that term being applied exactly? It would make sense if the term was only leveled against specific news that is not based on openly verifiable fact. However, some individuals use it to refer to entire news organizations, seemingly ones that oppose their views, while not applying it to other organizations that clearly have the same or lower standards for verifiability.

wyldfire 8y ago

Much of the threads on this HN article seem to focus on different perspectives on the term itself, and what it means. Its contemporary usage primarily indicates websites which purport to be local news organizations which instead write fabricated articles with specific deceptive intent. Unfortunately, some have taken to hijacking the term to describe "articles/publications that I choose not to believe, or that I have come to believe are not credible." I think it's this ambiguity (depending on the speaker) that causes some distaste for this term. But I think we should instead choose to embrace the former meaning and reject the latter. Or if absolutely, positively necessary, consider the latter to be the true meaning and come up with a new term to describe the former. I don't think we need to throw up our hands in the face of this lexical challenge. To do so would forfeit all debates to some epistemological quandary.

code_duck 8y ago
“websites which purport to be local news organizations which instead write fabricated articles with specific deceptive intent” Great summary. My perception is that was the original usage, and I am okay with it. I wouldn’t say it’s the common usage now since the term was hijacked by the president to mean the latter definition, and his reach and influence beats that of those using the term in the original sense. I’m not sure if it can be rescued at this point, so I prefer the solution of ditching it.