4 ms·
I think there's something to this, but perhaps a bit more complex. A lot of the "fake news" I see is coming straight from NYT and WaPo, so not directly due to
by downerending 6y ago
I think there's something to this, but perhaps a bit more complex. A lot of the "fake news" I see is coming straight from NYT and WaPo, so not directly due to "bots" or whatever. But certainly it's plausible that a foreign entity could be indirectly plotting to destroy the credibility of those papers, as a general morale destroyer. Watching our papers of record debase themselves is an awful sight.
The broad "bot" concept could be in play, but people are so cheap that I suspect it's funded humans instead. There does seem to be something amplifying our tendencies towards polarization.
Thirty years ago, if someone had a wacky set of ideas, people would point and laugh. These days, they're relatively more likely to clubbed into submission, forced into a struggle session, or just cancelled completely.
- D13Fd 6y agoI actually didn't even mention bots, although social media bots are part of it (in terms of posting things). I think it's mostly real people working for Russia and China, stirring up other people who are not. Social media is a huge echo chamber. As far as NYT and WaPo, they are not "fake news" in the sense I was talking about. Nor is Fox, Breitbart, OANN etc. I'm talking about sites that are set up for people to imitate news organizations and spread made up but super polarizing content, often about race, religion, abortion, guns, immigration -- anything that divides people. That content then pings around on social media and helps amps up the polarization to incredible levels.
- downerending 6y ago> I'm talking about sites that are set up for people to imitate news organizations and spread made up but super polarizing content, often about race, religion, abortion, guns, immigration -- anything that divides people. That pretty much describes journalism these days.
- pieterk 6y agodivide and conquer.