8 ms·

> It's always just a matter of perspective Straight-up lying does exist. And to quote the article: “We must persuade the general public that fake news and di

> It's always just a matter of perspective Straight-up lying does exist. And to quote the article: “We must persuade the general public that fake news and disinformation are simply not a question of different opinions, but a planned campaign organized by foreign actors,” Kučík said. “This is a serious matter.”

thinkingemote 6y ago
Straight up lying does exist, and it exists alongside bias and propaganda. The irony is to combat fake news and lies is also to combat bias, persuasion and tactics to influence. None of those with power or in the media game want to do this really because it makes them weaker.
rapind 6y ago
Might need to broaden the scope beyond "foreign actors". I actually think you have more "domestic actors" spreading misinformation these days. The only solution is to educate the population to question the source and incentives.
slightwinder 6y ago
> Straight-up lying does exist. And? All side lies. People lie to fight lies. Is a smaller evil good when it serve the greater goodness or still bad? Is false good still good when you don't see the lie? What if you the lie but not the greater good?
- ColanR 6y ago
  Lies are lies - and it's increasingly easy to see through them. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, the reason not to lie is that you will probably be caught, and after that you will not be trusted. The information age will force the art of PR to reevaluate itself at a fundamental level.
  - slightwinder 6y ago
    > Lies are lies - and it's increasingly easy to see through them. No, it's not. If everyone lies, how do you know what's real? The reveal could be a lie too. You need to have expertise in the specific area to know whether it's a lie or not. Or you trust nothing, or everything, or just convincing sources. That's a reason why fake-news work so well, because people can't trust anything anymore, some people choose the sources which from their point of view are the least untrustable. In which case certain lies have no relevance for them anymore. > the reason not to lie is that you will probably be caught, and after that you will not be trusted. Reality has disprooven this more than enough. Unless it's a big lie with legal consequences, getting caught is just a temporary sting which in best case goes under in the flood of daily noise and comes long after the lie was spread, in which case it has no relevance anyway.
    - ColanR 6y ago
      > You need to have expertise in the specific area to know whether it's a lie or not That is exactly my point. The knowledge that the expertise is based on is available for everyone. If you actually read the conspiracy theories around the virus, and don't allow popular media to tell you they're all idiots, you'd find there is very well researched information out there. You don't need an academic position to know how to do research. And if you know enough, you can validate for yourself of what you're told is true - unless you advocate taking the official sources as unquestionable. > Reality has disproven this more than enough. I was thinking the current distrust of the WHO and China was enough evidence of my claim being true. Not to mention the declining trust in mass media (though whether that last one is deserved is a rather partisan question). Getting caught in a lie is not "just a temporary sting": it's why people become "conspiracy theorists", which is another way of saying, someone who doesn't trust the official story.

thinkingemote 6y ago

Straight up lying does exist, and it exists alongside bias and propaganda. The irony is to combat fake news and lies is also to combat bias, persuasion and tactics to influence. None of those with power or in the media game want to do this really because it makes them weaker.

rapind 6y ago

Might need to broaden the scope beyond "foreign actors". I actually think you have more "domestic actors" spreading misinformation these days. The only solution is to educate the population to question the source and incentives.

slightwinder 6y ago

> Straight-up lying does exist. And? All side lies. People lie to fight lies. Is a smaller evil good when it serve the greater goodness or still bad? Is false good still good when you don't see the lie? What if you the lie but not the greater good?

ColanR 6y ago
Lies are lies - and it's increasingly easy to see through them. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, the reason not to lie is that you will probably be caught, and after that you will not be trusted. The information age will force the art of PR to reevaluate itself at a fundamental level.
- slightwinder 6y ago
  > Lies are lies - and it's increasingly easy to see through them. No, it's not. If everyone lies, how do you know what's real? The reveal could be a lie too. You need to have expertise in the specific area to know whether it's a lie or not. Or you trust nothing, or everything, or just convincing sources. That's a reason why fake-news work so well, because people can't trust anything anymore, some people choose the sources which from their point of view are the least untrustable. In which case certain lies have no relevance for them anymore. > the reason not to lie is that you will probably be caught, and after that you will not be trusted. Reality has disprooven this more than enough. Unless it's a big lie with legal consequences, getting caught is just a temporary sting which in best case goes under in the flood of daily noise and comes long after the lie was spread, in which case it has no relevance anyway.
  - ColanR 6y ago
    > You need to have expertise in the specific area to know whether it's a lie or not That is exactly my point. The knowledge that the expertise is based on is available for everyone. If you actually read the conspiracy theories around the virus, and don't allow popular media to tell you they're all idiots, you'd find there is very well researched information out there. You don't need an academic position to know how to do research. And if you know enough, you can validate for yourself of what you're told is true - unless you advocate taking the official sources as unquestionable. > Reality has disproven this more than enough. I was thinking the current distrust of the WHO and China was enough evidence of my claim being true. Not to mention the declining trust in mass media (though whether that last one is deserved is a rather partisan question). Getting caught in a lie is not "just a temporary sting": it's why people become "conspiracy theorists", which is another way of saying, someone who doesn't trust the official story.