4 ms·
> A simple law could require for-profit publishers of fake news to ensure a similar audience (retargeting or newly paid) reads the correction. Readers of fake
by q-big 4y ago
>
A simple law could require for-profit publishers of fake news to ensure a similar audience (retargeting or newly paid) reads the correction.
Readers of fake news get the "correction" shown, but don't necessarily read it. ;-)
- spookthesunset 4y agoThis applies to basically the entire spectrum of humanity, not just readers of “fake news”. For example NYT published all kinds of hyperbolic garbage the last 2.5 years that scared the living daylights out of their readers. It took them better part of an entire year before they stopped saying that the IFR for Covid was 4%, despite there being ample real world data to suggest it was several orders of magnitude lower. Will they ever publish a correction for that? Is what they published “fake news”? I mean the figure they published was based on some sketchy model made by a person with a long history of publishing sketchy models… some “expert” said it was true, so it has to be right? “Fake news” is just a way to dismiss anything that isn’t aligned with the current dogma. Plenty of “fake news” turned out to be quite real over the course of the last two years. And yes there is actual fake news out there. But too many people think that whatever they are reading isn’t also “fake news”. Everybody needs to think critically about what they read. Just because NYT or The Atlantic said it doesn’t mean it is true either.
- cynusx 4y agoWell, there are outrageous lies, damn lies and statistics I guess.
- mellavora 4y agoYou could modify the algo to not display additional content unless the person showed evidence of having read it. Not saying this would be a good idea...