2 ms·
We're already seeing a similar effect through privately run communication systems like Facebook too, though. Facebook has clearly failed to take responsibility
by save_ferris 7y ago
We're already seeing a similar effect through privately run communication systems like Facebook too, though.
Facebook has clearly failed to take responsibility to combat fake news, as some of the most serious solutions to the problem pose existential threats to their entire business.
On top of that, we're also seeing high-profile figures and politicians pushing propaganda successfully without the need for censorship (the Obama birtherism conspiracy, the Jade Helm conspiracy, etc.) Whether or not they're willingly doing so is up for debate, but some of the conspiracies being pushed are inflammatory, ridiculous, and damaging to our civil discourse.
The heads of major political parties get to decide what is real information and what is fake now; they don't need censorship to do this.
Look at how many plainly absurd lies this administration has pushed about the most inane things (the inauguration attendance) to the most serious things (Trump dictating the false statement on the June 2016 meeting, etc.)
There's just no longer an incentive to have a good-faith debate on anything.
- darkpuma 7y ago> "The heads of major political parties get to decide what is real information and what is fake now; they don't need censorship to do this." I don't need a car to get to work. I've got a bicycle and five miles on a bike is nothing. But the car sure as hell makes it easier.
- save_ferris 7y agoIn your analogy, you get to work either way. In either case, our discourse continues to suffer. So what choice do we have? Maintain the current system and watch our process devolve slowly, or permit regulation which runs the risk of creating a power vacuum? Our system suffers in either case. We're talking about damage control at this point; not actually fixing the problem.
- ralusek 7y agoI have good faith debates all the time, and I can count on one hand how many times I've been arguing with someone that is relying on incorrect facts. People actually don't tend to disagree on facts very often, they disagree on conclusions. I don't want a political entity determine which conclusions are correct, because that is the job a long and public negotiation.
- beepboopbeep 7y agoYour opinion doesn't make policy.
- anoncake 7y agoIf we tolerate fake news (as in: incorrect facts), chances are people will disagree on facts more often.
- ralusek 7y agoI have never seen the label of "fake news" be reliably limited to incorrect facts. It was a label that immediately become useless because of how subjectively it was applied.