5 ms·

I think censoring the "fake news" is far more dangerous than to just let it exist and have people think for themselves about what's true or false.

stuartaxelowen 8y ago
Why?
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Fake news is known only after the fact. (After verification.) If you can accept only really verifiably sourced news, things become really inconvenient for both journalists and political opposition. And where do you put the bar? No interpretation allowed dry facts? Court rulings?
  - rjtavares 8y ago
    News that turn out to be false are not fake news. News deliberately known to be false are fake news. Example from the last US presidential election: * The Pope endorses Bernie Sanders -> this is fake news * The Pope endorses Trump -> this is fake news * The Pope endorses Clinton -> this is fake news All three spread on facebook, btw (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pope-francis-shocks-world-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pope-francis-shocks-world-...) Also, anonymous sources are not fake news, they're anonymous sources. If labelled as such, the are fine.
    - arethuza 8y ago
      Turkey joining the EU was another example from the Brexit campaign - it was clearly nonsense (Turkey might want to join the EU but the chances of that happening any time soon is pretty much zero): https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/unfounded-claim-turkey-swing-brexit-referendum/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/unfounded-claim-tu...
      - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
        The Facebook Ads, when those were revealed, were nothing more than racist lies. Trying to imply all of Turkey would be in the UK without Brexit. Just like we had all of Greece, and all of Poland then, where there's naught but a wilderness now.
        arethuza 8y ago
        Of course, one thing that I hadn't realised until watching "Brexit: the Uncivil War" is that by using targetted ads in Facebook only the groups targetted get to see the ads - so the other side of the debate, the press and the general public are completely oblivious to what is actually being communicated.
      - growlist 8y ago
        Indeed, here's another example: 'Leaving the European Union would tip the UK into a year-long recession, with up to 820,000 jobs lost within two years, Chancellor George Osborne says. Publishing Treasury analysis, he said a Leave vote would cause an "immediate and profound" economic shock, with growth between 3% and 6% lower.'
        pjc50 8y ago
        Well, the shock hasn't arrived yet, but we've not left yet either. Businesses have held off on action due to the lack of clarity but are starting to move out now. Edit: Honda Swindon is the latest, just now.
        growlist 8y ago
        Utterly immaterial to my post. Here's what he said: 'a Leave vote would cause an "immediate and profound" economic shock' No mention of 'when we leave', is there? Also if you have a special hotline to Honda management please enlighten us further, because as far as I'm aware nothing has been shared at this time pointing to it being caused by Brexit. Also there are significant global trends affecting the car industry that have nothing to do with Brexit. Please don't be disingenuous.
    - sparkie 8y ago
      Trump ties with Russia -> this is fake news
      - rjtavares 8y ago
        That's just a bad headline. "Ties" is so vague that it can mean anything.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - mikeq101101 8y ago
      >The Pope endorses Bernie Sanders If it was only things like these, no one would have a problem. But in practice, anything other than "Hillary Clinton is completely healthy" and "Trump is a Russian puppet" is categorized as fake news. This push against fake news is just the elites trying to hold onto the power of controlling the narrative.
      - rjtavares 8y ago
        > But in practice, anything other than "Hillary Clinton is completely healthy" and "Trump is a Russian puppet" is categorized as fake news. By whom? No serious fact checking effort I've seen suffers from that problem.
    - rjf72 8y ago
      This is an insufficient definition of fake news since Due Diligence is a huge part of real journalism. I could email some news organization claiming to be an insider and offering some 'explosive revelation' about an issue or another. It would be absolutely fake news for them to simply run that story while attributing it to an anonymous source. It's their responsibility to ensure that what I say is true beyond any reasonable doubt. When dealing with anonymous and/or potentially biased sources this responsibility is exponentially more important. There was a very recent example of this where Buzzfeed chose to publish an 'explosive' story about the Mueller investigation. So explosive was the story that the Mueller team took the completely unprecedented step of publicly clarifying that Buzzfeed's story was fake. [1] I doubt they simply made up the story. In reality they most likely simply failed to effectively carry out their due diligence, but this is in many ways no better because there is a major economic incentive to skip or engage in sloppy due diligence. When you run explosive stories you get substantial revenue gains due to the exclusive attention you gain. And there's also the risk that a story is true and, in the process of trying to validate it, you end up getting beat to the press by another media organization - once again hurting your revenue and visibility. [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2019/01/18/b9c40d34-1b85-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2019/...
      - rjtavares 8y ago
        I'd argue that sloppy reporting is not fake news, and shouldn't be censored. That story hurt Buzzfeed's credibility [even more], and increased Mueller's credibility. That is how it is supposed to work.
  - rimliu 8y ago
    Flat Earth is fake news, and thats not after the fact. Vaccines do not cause autism, it is also already known. Yet this deadly misinformation keeps spreading.
- justwalt 8y ago
  I’d guess he’d answer that it’s hard to be sure the people verifying the news are not just censoring what they don’t like.
  - logifail 8y ago
    > the people verifying [...] There are opinion pieces thinly disguised as "fact checks".
- michaelt 8y ago
  There is a theory that says people will be inoculated against fake news, if only they're exposed to enough of it. That critical thinking skills, like immune systems and website security, are made strong by unrelenting attacks. After all, it's unlikely we'll ever see a day where everyone agrees on everything so completely that no two humans disagree about anything! And as long as that's the case, we'd better know how to deal with people telling us things that are wrong. The theory goes that seeing social media messages with obvious lies like "Put nails in your tyres for better winter traction" and "Shoot yourself with small calibre bullets to build an immunity to larger bullets" teaches people scepticism and rational thought they can apply to much more complex statements like "inflation is caused by the fed printing money" and "the highest crime areas are those with a lot of immigrants" Does it work? Have we seen it working hitherto? You be the judge!
  - pnongrata 8y ago
    Here in Brazil there is a very strong media monopoly, so most people are used to being fed only one side of the stories. It breaks critical thinking skills and leaves people completely vulnerable to trash content propagated within whatsapp and facebook. The problem here is that these "propagandists" cater to people's emotions in a very persuasive manner. It's not that it will blatantly tell you "Shoot yourself with small calibre bullets", but rather it will inseminate the thought that perhaps you should shoot your neighbor, out of fear. The message is so masterfully targeted and gamified that even if 1 person starts having more "critical thinking" and simply shrug off the information, there are 10 more people ready and willing.
  - flavor8 8y ago
    > There is a theory that says people will be inoculated against fake news, if only they're exposed to enough of it. Rwanda is possibly the best most recent counterpoint to this argument. Granted that the medium was radio as opposed to internet, and that there are therefore different regulatory mechanisms that can be applied (public airwaves vs TCP/IP) - but it shows the danger of getting people into a warped reality bubble. https://blogs.library.duke.edu/rubenstein/2013/05/10/radio-in-the-rwandan-genocide/ https://blogs.library.duke.edu/rubenstein/2013/05/10/radio-i...
spinach 8y ago
Hasn't this already shown to be a failure with Trump's election in America, Jair Bolsonaro's election in Brazil, etc.
- Haga 8y ago
  That's quite some iceberg hubris there. A truly informed person could not possibly vote this way hidden behind a scapegoat. Well maybe people vote this way the moment the dividend of science fails to arrive in a row.
- beaner 8y ago
  What evidence do you have that Trump's election was the result of fake news?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- mikeq101101 8y ago
  Fighting against fake news by spreading fake news, good job.
frereubu 8y ago
Just set a high bar. There are cases where the science is settled - vaccines, for example - where the spread of false information is already leading to direct harm such as a higher rate of measles outbreaks. I think people are too scared of decisions like this. It just doesn't feel complicated. There are laws that control speech - fraud, libel and so on. Why is this any different?
- BorRagnarok 8y ago
  Good example, but I still think it's better to have conflicting information out there, let people write what they write and read what they read. And above all, think for themselves, or at least try. Sure, a couple of people end up not vaccinating their kids. The rest shouldn't have a problem with that, after all, they do vaccinate, so their kids are protected. It's an extreme example but I don't see anything that warrants curtailing free speech here. And also, I think science is never settled. Science is a never ending stream of questions, with every answer evoking multiple new questions to be answered. The idea that the "science is settled" has reared it's ugly head multiple times in the past, to be proven wrong every single time. What if bloodletting was as some point considered "settled science" and no discussion of alternatives was allowed? We would still be doing bloodletting, wouldn't we?
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    >The rest shouldn't have a problem with that, after all, they do vaccinate, so their kids are protected. It's an extreme example but I don't see anything that warrants curtailing free speech here. Are you honestly serious here? Do you not realize that there are many kids and people that legitimately can not vaccinate their own kids due to allergy or immune response issues? They compromise herd immunity and is the entire reason why we're seeing another measles outbreak! Acting like there isn't a problem here is either being simply uninformed or deliberately ignorant. That's exactly why I have a problem with anti-vaxxers because they're threatening the lives of those around them because of some incredibly stupid and unfounded beliefs.
    - AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
TomMckenny 8y ago
If we're not even going to flag completely false yet carefully crafted propaganda from hostile countries designed solely to wreck our democracy, then we are screwed. And be aware that nations that censor aren't flagging a meme or two. They conspicuously hound reputable outlets and reporters into silence. And everyone living in such places knows it's happening. They're not wringing thier hands wondering if holocaust denial is not ranked high enough by google, they talking worriedly about Maria Ressa being suddenly jailed etc.
- repolfx 8y ago
  You have no idea if such propaganda even exists. Here is the UK culture minister today writing about the need to control the internet because of "disinformation" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/17/era-self-regulation-technology-companies-coming-end/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/17/era-self-reg... But he admits that there is no evidence any foreign power has tried to target the UK via disinformation in any way. And there is no real evidence that's been happening in the USA either. Those claims always fall apart when studied.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    It clearly does exist. Read the report carefully e.g. para 240: "the Government stated that, following the nerve agent attack in Salisbury in March 2018, the Government had “judged the Russian state promulgated at least 38 false disinformation narratives around this criminal act”.267 However, the Government made it clear that “it has not seen evidence of successful use of disinformation by foreign actors, including Russia, to influence UK democratic processes”.2 What is disputed is whether and how "successful" it was, which is almost impossible to ever be certain about.
raverbashing 8y ago
The current Measles epidemic is the result of letting people ""think for themselves""
- buboard 8y ago
  what do you think would be the extent of it if people read "government hides the truth about vaccines"

stuartaxelowen 8y ago

Why?

AstralStorm 8y ago
Fake news is known only after the fact. (After verification.) If you can accept only really verifiably sourced news, things become really inconvenient for both journalists and political opposition. And where do you put the bar? No interpretation allowed dry facts? Court rulings?
- rjtavares 8y ago
  News that turn out to be false are not fake news. News deliberately known to be false are fake news. Example from the last US presidential election: * The Pope endorses Bernie Sanders -> this is fake news * The Pope endorses Trump -> this is fake news * The Pope endorses Clinton -> this is fake news All three spread on facebook, btw (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pope-francis-shocks-world-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pope-francis-shocks-world-...) Also, anonymous sources are not fake news, they're anonymous sources. If labelled as such, the are fine.
  - arethuza 8y ago
    Turkey joining the EU was another example from the Brexit campaign - it was clearly nonsense (Turkey might want to join the EU but the chances of that happening any time soon is pretty much zero): https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/unfounded-claim-turkey-swing-brexit-referendum/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/unfounded-claim-tu...
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      The Facebook Ads, when those were revealed, were nothing more than racist lies. Trying to imply all of Turkey would be in the UK without Brexit. Just like we had all of Greece, and all of Poland then, where there's naught but a wilderness now.
      - arethuza 8y ago
        Of course, one thing that I hadn't realised until watching "Brexit: the Uncivil War" is that by using targetted ads in Facebook only the groups targetted get to see the ads - so the other side of the debate, the press and the general public are completely oblivious to what is actually being communicated.
    - growlist 8y ago
      Indeed, here's another example: 'Leaving the European Union would tip the UK into a year-long recession, with up to 820,000 jobs lost within two years, Chancellor George Osborne says. Publishing Treasury analysis, he said a Leave vote would cause an "immediate and profound" economic shock, with growth between 3% and 6% lower.'
      - pjc50 8y ago
        Well, the shock hasn't arrived yet, but we've not left yet either. Businesses have held off on action due to the lack of clarity but are starting to move out now. Edit: Honda Swindon is the latest, just now.
        growlist 8y ago
        Utterly immaterial to my post. Here's what he said: 'a Leave vote would cause an "immediate and profound" economic shock' No mention of 'when we leave', is there? Also if you have a special hotline to Honda management please enlighten us further, because as far as I'm aware nothing has been shared at this time pointing to it being caused by Brexit. Also there are significant global trends affecting the car industry that have nothing to do with Brexit. Please don't be disingenuous.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    Trump ties with Russia -> this is fake news
    - rjtavares 8y ago
      That's just a bad headline. "Ties" is so vague that it can mean anything.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - mikeq101101 8y ago
    >The Pope endorses Bernie Sanders If it was only things like these, no one would have a problem. But in practice, anything other than "Hillary Clinton is completely healthy" and "Trump is a Russian puppet" is categorized as fake news. This push against fake news is just the elites trying to hold onto the power of controlling the narrative.
    - rjtavares 8y ago
      > But in practice, anything other than "Hillary Clinton is completely healthy" and "Trump is a Russian puppet" is categorized as fake news. By whom? No serious fact checking effort I've seen suffers from that problem.
  - rjf72 8y ago
    This is an insufficient definition of fake news since Due Diligence is a huge part of real journalism. I could email some news organization claiming to be an insider and offering some 'explosive revelation' about an issue or another. It would be absolutely fake news for them to simply run that story while attributing it to an anonymous source. It's their responsibility to ensure that what I say is true beyond any reasonable doubt. When dealing with anonymous and/or potentially biased sources this responsibility is exponentially more important. There was a very recent example of this where Buzzfeed chose to publish an 'explosive' story about the Mueller investigation. So explosive was the story that the Mueller team took the completely unprecedented step of publicly clarifying that Buzzfeed's story was fake. [1] I doubt they simply made up the story. In reality they most likely simply failed to effectively carry out their due diligence, but this is in many ways no better because there is a major economic incentive to skip or engage in sloppy due diligence. When you run explosive stories you get substantial revenue gains due to the exclusive attention you gain. And there's also the risk that a story is true and, in the process of trying to validate it, you end up getting beat to the press by another media organization - once again hurting your revenue and visibility. [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2019/01/18/b9c40d34-1b85-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2019/...
    - rjtavares 8y ago
      I'd argue that sloppy reporting is not fake news, and shouldn't be censored. That story hurt Buzzfeed's credibility [even more], and increased Mueller's credibility. That is how it is supposed to work.
- rimliu 8y ago
  Flat Earth is fake news, and thats not after the fact. Vaccines do not cause autism, it is also already known. Yet this deadly misinformation keeps spreading.
justwalt 8y ago
I’d guess he’d answer that it’s hard to be sure the people verifying the news are not just censoring what they don’t like.
- logifail 8y ago
  > the people verifying [...] There are opinion pieces thinly disguised as "fact checks".
michaelt 8y ago
There is a theory that says people will be inoculated against fake news, if only they're exposed to enough of it. That critical thinking skills, like immune systems and website security, are made strong by unrelenting attacks. After all, it's unlikely we'll ever see a day where everyone agrees on everything so completely that no two humans disagree about anything! And as long as that's the case, we'd better know how to deal with people telling us things that are wrong. The theory goes that seeing social media messages with obvious lies like "Put nails in your tyres for better winter traction" and "Shoot yourself with small calibre bullets to build an immunity to larger bullets" teaches people scepticism and rational thought they can apply to much more complex statements like "inflation is caused by the fed printing money" and "the highest crime areas are those with a lot of immigrants" Does it work? Have we seen it working hitherto? You be the judge!
- pnongrata 8y ago
  Here in Brazil there is a very strong media monopoly, so most people are used to being fed only one side of the stories. It breaks critical thinking skills and leaves people completely vulnerable to trash content propagated within whatsapp and facebook. The problem here is that these "propagandists" cater to people's emotions in a very persuasive manner. It's not that it will blatantly tell you "Shoot yourself with small calibre bullets", but rather it will inseminate the thought that perhaps you should shoot your neighbor, out of fear. The message is so masterfully targeted and gamified that even if 1 person starts having more "critical thinking" and simply shrug off the information, there are 10 more people ready and willing.
- flavor8 8y ago
  > There is a theory that says people will be inoculated against fake news, if only they're exposed to enough of it. Rwanda is possibly the best most recent counterpoint to this argument. Granted that the medium was radio as opposed to internet, and that there are therefore different regulatory mechanisms that can be applied (public airwaves vs TCP/IP) - but it shows the danger of getting people into a warped reality bubble. https://blogs.library.duke.edu/rubenstein/2013/05/10/radio-in-the-rwandan-genocide/ https://blogs.library.duke.edu/rubenstein/2013/05/10/radio-i...

spinach 8y ago

Hasn't this already shown to be a failure with Trump's election in America, Jair Bolsonaro's election in Brazil, etc.

Haga 8y ago
That's quite some iceberg hubris there. A truly informed person could not possibly vote this way hidden behind a scapegoat. Well maybe people vote this way the moment the dividend of science fails to arrive in a row.
beaner 8y ago
What evidence do you have that Trump's election was the result of fake news?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
mikeq101101 8y ago
Fighting against fake news by spreading fake news, good job.

frereubu 8y ago

Just set a high bar. There are cases where the science is settled - vaccines, for example - where the spread of false information is already leading to direct harm such as a higher rate of measles outbreaks. I think people are too scared of decisions like this. It just doesn't feel complicated. There are laws that control speech - fraud, libel and so on. Why is this any different?

BorRagnarok 8y ago
Good example, but I still think it's better to have conflicting information out there, let people write what they write and read what they read. And above all, think for themselves, or at least try. Sure, a couple of people end up not vaccinating their kids. The rest shouldn't have a problem with that, after all, they do vaccinate, so their kids are protected. It's an extreme example but I don't see anything that warrants curtailing free speech here. And also, I think science is never settled. Science is a never ending stream of questions, with every answer evoking multiple new questions to be answered. The idea that the "science is settled" has reared it's ugly head multiple times in the past, to be proven wrong every single time. What if bloodletting was as some point considered "settled science" and no discussion of alternatives was allowed? We would still be doing bloodletting, wouldn't we?
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  >The rest shouldn't have a problem with that, after all, they do vaccinate, so their kids are protected. It's an extreme example but I don't see anything that warrants curtailing free speech here. Are you honestly serious here? Do you not realize that there are many kids and people that legitimately can not vaccinate their own kids due to allergy or immune response issues? They compromise herd immunity and is the entire reason why we're seeing another measles outbreak! Acting like there isn't a problem here is either being simply uninformed or deliberately ignorant. That's exactly why I have a problem with anti-vaxxers because they're threatening the lives of those around them because of some incredibly stupid and unfounded beliefs.
  - AlexTWithBeard 8y ago

TomMckenny 8y ago

If we're not even going to flag completely false yet carefully crafted propaganda from hostile countries designed solely to wreck our democracy, then we are screwed. And be aware that nations that censor aren't flagging a meme or two. They conspicuously hound reputable outlets and reporters into silence. And everyone living in such places knows it's happening. They're not wringing thier hands wondering if holocaust denial is not ranked high enough by google, they talking worriedly about Maria Ressa being suddenly jailed etc.

repolfx 8y ago
You have no idea if such propaganda even exists. Here is the UK culture minister today writing about the need to control the internet because of "disinformation" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/17/era-self-regulation-technology-companies-coming-end/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/17/era-self-reg... But he admits that there is no evidence any foreign power has tried to target the UK via disinformation in any way. And there is no real evidence that's been happening in the USA either. Those claims always fall apart when studied.
- pjc50 8y ago
  It clearly does exist. Read the report carefully e.g. para 240: "the Government stated that, following the nerve agent attack in Salisbury in March 2018, the Government had “judged the Russian state promulgated at least 38 false disinformation narratives around this criminal act”.267 However, the Government made it clear that “it has not seen evidence of successful use of disinformation by foreign actors, including Russia, to influence UK democratic processes”.2 What is disputed is whether and how "successful" it was, which is almost impossible to ever be certain about.

raverbashing 8y ago

The current Measles epidemic is the result of letting people ""think for themselves""

buboard 8y ago
what do you think would be the extent of it if people read "government hides the truth about vaccines"