16 ms·

Fake News and Democracy

17 points by panax 4y ago

panax 4y ago
"This paper argues that online fake news threatens democratic processes because it undermines citizens’ epistemic trust in each other. This in turn threatens to undermine the perceived legitimacy of democratic institutions as a whole." "Major democratic institutions have correctly identified fake news as a threat to their values and processes. However, the danger posed by these online falsehoods does not primarily lie in their power to convince readers of the veracity of their factually incorrect content. Rather, the primary danger fake news poses to democratic values and institutions lies in the corrosive effect it has on trust among citizens and thus on citizens’ trust in their democracy." "online fake news threatens democratic values and processes by playing a crucial role in reducing the perceived legitimacy of democratic institutions. This decrease in perceived legitimacy is the outcome of the primary effect that fake news has on citizens: even if its content is not believed, fake news can be a major cause of a loss of citizens’ epistemic trust in each other’s political views and judgment. Such a loss of trust in each other is problematic for democratic institutions since these rely for their acceptance and functioning on citizens seeing them as morally justified. Critiques of fake news often focus on citizens’ loss of trust in their mainstream media. While this is indeed part of the problem, I will argue that the main threat of fake news pertains to the loss of epistemic trust citizens have in each other. Fake news is thus a moral problem insofar as we think of democracies as a morally special, or at least a particularly valuable, form of government. This paper is significant because unlike most discussions of fake news that assume that citizens are likely to accept these falsehoods as true it takes seriously the empirical studies that assert that most people do not believe the content of fake news and explains why we should nonetheless consider fake news a morally significant problem."
- st-keller 4y ago
  If you kill the truth, then there are no facts. If nobody has facts, they must trust someone to lead them. Then you can rule. To get rid of a democracy, you habe to kill the truth first. Timothy Snyder
  - seti0Cha 4y ago
    Nonsense. When have people not trusted others to tell them what's true? When have they not been manipulated as a result? If that kills democracy, then it was dead from birth. Democracy persists, imperfect though it is, despite these facts. If it dies, it won't be because someone "invented" fake news. It's more likely to die because people believe it can't safely be practiced because of things like fake news.
- mikece 4y ago
  The problem with fighting "fake news" is that I've not seen a coherent definition of what "fake news" even is, much less a consistent definition among the media of what "truth" is or if it's an objective or relative standard. "News" sources these days have to get ratings/views/clicks/engagement in order to sell advertising which is an inherent conflict of interest against the idea of simply informing the reader/listener/viewer. As dependent as news outlets are on advertising do you think they are going to run afoul of their biggest buyers of ads (Big Pharma and the defense industry)? "Fake news" cannot be fixed until the funding model for news is fixed.
  - mc32 4y ago
    Especially problematic are so-called "fact-checking" services which often rely on technicalities to declare something true or false. "It was so hot everyone went to the beach" False, there are reports a few grandparents did not go to the beach. "Not everyone received the reimbursement" False, although not everyone received the re-imbursements, you can re-apply for the re-imbursements in order to receive them. And this is why few people use them to change their minds and either serve to reinforce what they believe or reinforce their belief to not believe their conclusions.
  - nh23423fefe 4y ago
    This isn't true. "Fake news" is an imitation of news. News is what we all know news is. A product that presents information. There is entertainment news, celebrity news, movie news, music news. But "the news" is usually current events or politics. Everyone knows "fake news" means fake political news. An imitation of a format we all recognize. Pretending you cant tell the difference is "fake commenting". You are pretending to discuss coherence and truth and objectivity. But really you dont care. You aren't defending fake news on the merits. You are saying, "there isn't any such thing as news, so how can this other stuff be fake." Its crap and not a real comment. It isn't even an original thought.
    - mikece 4y ago
      Simply having a scoop before everyone else can get you labeled as fake news. Happens almost daily in the world of sports news where some journalist reports on a tip that such-and-such player is going to be traded or is injured or going to be suspended but the official team PR people will deny it -- not because they are lying but because they simply don't know (yet). So in this case the team's official PR person denying the story causes the reported tip to be deemed "fake news" until the truth of the matter comes out later. My point in this example is that the accusation of fake news is by no means limited to politics or hard-news per se: it can apply to any situation where the speed at which people learn something happens at different speeds, especially before the official news/PR people for an organization even know.
AnnoyedComment 4y ago
thepasswordis 4y ago
- triceratops 4y ago
  He was impeached for withholding military aid to Ukraine. Which Russia is now invading. Does it matter if he was literally an asset or not, given he pretty much played the part anyway?
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > Does it matter if he was literally an asset or not Does what is actually true matter, at least plausibly, all things considered?
  - thepasswordis 4y ago
    This is exactly the problem with fake news. It sticks around, and you've been caught by it. It seems likely that this fake news has influenced your ability to make rational decisions about how you vote, etc. This is a huge problem for democracy. No he did not withhold military aid from Ukraine. In fact in the initial offensive, the javelin missiles that they were effectively using against Russian tanks came from the Trump administration. And in fact Trump was highly critical of the previous administration for "only sending blankets", which was something he was called a hawk for. AND NOT ONLY THAT but one of the major points of Trump's presidency was criticizing European/NATO nations for not spending enough on their defense; specifically warning that Russia was going to use their dependence on Russian natgas, and lack of military spending, to Russia's advantage. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k
    - somebehemoth 4y ago
      Trump's chief of staff at he time, Mick Mulvaney: "Mulvaney added: "Did he also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that's it. And that's why we held up the money." ABC News' Jonathan Karl immediately followed up and asked Mulvaney to confirm that "the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine." Mulvaney replied affirmatively, saying that "the look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation." https://www.businessinsider.com/mick-mulvaney-confirms-trump-held-ukraine-aid-for-investigation-2019-10?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/mick-mulvaney-confirms-trump...
ekianjo 4y ago
Its as if they dont realize that fake news is not only the product of crazy people online. How many hoaxes from recognized institutions like the NYT do you need before you stop trusting just anything?
- nh23423fefe 4y ago
  Why would I trust nothing? the NYT isn't a monolithic actor with a singular mind. what you propose is meaningless.
  - kodah 4y ago
    The NYT does run, centrally, what they call "narratives" which I think is what people are referencing here. This has apparently been in practice for quite some time but only has been a point of discussion as people leave.
  - HKH2 4y ago
    > the NYT isn't a monolithic actor with a singular mind. Isn't there an editor?
- h2odragon 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty https://www.historyonthenet.com/walter-duranty-new-york-times https://www.historyonthenet.com/walter-duranty-new-york-time...
- insightcheck 4y ago
  Alternatively, one can think critically on a case-by-case basis, instead of either trusting nothing at all or giving uncritical trust based on a source.
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    > one can think critically on a case-by-case basis That's easy to say. If all of your sources are poisoned with narratives and misrepresentation (in one way or another), you basically don't have any anchor to make proper judgment.
wikitopian 4y ago
The conceit that there's some objective "not fake news" out there to which "fake news" doesn't measure up is fake news. News reporting is integrally and inextricably laden with bias, motive, and perspective. The 20th century corporate media monopoly which purported to be the ministry of truth is dead, and lamenting over its grave won't bring it back to life.
- Xeoncross 4y ago
  "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" - George Orwell I think it comes back to the fact that some views are absolutely wrong in all cultures at all times. However those are often not what is being discussed. Many popular topics are actually collections of trade offs vilified by the opposing parties.
- washbrain 4y ago
  Yes, all outlets are biased. It is literally impossible to have a neutral news source. But there's a world of difference between, say, a random article on the BBC and Alex Jones saying the kids in Sandy Hook were crisis actors. I think we can agree that there is a material difference there.
  - Dma54rhs 4y ago
    You're not wrong, but I personally would like to see the job of being a reporter like public defendant, a lawyer, judge. Sure none of those are non biased either, but at least people try to hold on to that ideal. This seems like a lazy defense of bad reporters who turned out to become propagandists instead.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - LewisVerstappen 4y ago
    > a random article on the BBC and Alex Jones saying the kids in Sandy Hook were crisis actors A tiny fraction of people follow Alex Jones and the vast majority disagree (or have no idea who he is). I have yet to see someone who actually believes the kids in Sandy Hook were crisis actors. The reality is that the US corporate media (literally billion dollar media companies like NY Times or WaPo) are angry about losing their monopoly on what the "truth" is. Now, they have to compete with independent journalists publishing on Substack/YouTube (read how critical the NY Times is of Substack. It's absurd.). They're trying to get YouTube/Facebook/Twitter to censor anyone who's not "an expert", where they get to decide who counts as an expert. So, the media is trying to push a narrative that Alex Jones is a bigger threat than he really is. They're also trying to paint all independent media as Alex Jones-type so they can maintain their monopoly on the truth. Meanwhile, they continue to run million dollar marketing campaigns where they're trying convince everyone that they're the truth ("Democracy Dies in Darkness"). Frankly, the media did the exact same thing with Trump in 2016 (and continue to do so). Trump was a fringe character during the beginning of the RNC for the 2016 election and Jeb Bush was the frontrunner. The media (left especially) proceeded to talk about Trump 24/7 and give him unlimited free air time (and they got a ratings bump in return). They took someone who was a fringe character and made him seem like the mainstream. The Streisand Effect kicked in and Trump immediately shot up in the polls. Then, when Trump ended up winning, the media pretended they had 0 culpability and spun up a false narrative that the Russian interference gave Trump the victory (The Russians interfered, but their interference wasn't what swung the election, it was a laughable attempt if you read their strategies. The media talking about Trump 24/7 was what gave him the victory).
illuminerdy 4y ago
Let's face it, the only reason that 'fake news' exists in its current form is because the corporate media has done such a piss-poor job of holding to journalistic ethics, which has been declining steadily for decades. If people actually had an alternative that they thought they could trust, there would not be a market for 'fake news' (which sometimes turns out to just be the whole, unbiased facts presented in opposition to the agenda-driven and manipulated 'news' of the legacy media).
- watwut 4y ago
  Fake news fairly often originate in corporate media, including Fox and talk radio networks.
  - illuminerdy 4y ago
    I don't disagree, but I have two issues when people bring up Fox and news radio. Fox is a single entity, and let's be fair in terms of conservative/Republican vs liberal/Democrat, the split between media outlets is like 80/20 in favor of the latter. So when people focus on Fox they're ignoring 80% of the lies and half-truths that are put out there. Because that's done by outlets like MSNBC and CNN and your local outlets. The second issue is that, unlike many liberal outlets, Fox at least brings on actual liberals to push back or give differing opinions. On the other hand you have companies like the BBC who are literally banning opposing views on topics like the environment and coronavirus.
- tzs 4y ago
  People do have an alternative they think they can trust: Facebook and other social media sites.
  - illuminerdy 4y ago
    You mean the social media sites that made every effort to suppress stories that reflected poorly on Democrats during the last election (and before)? Anyone who trusts Big Tech, social media, or Late Night talk shows to give them factual information deserves to have their voting status revoked. I'm joking, but I'm kinda not.
h2odragon 4y ago
Fake news is the responsibility of anti-revolutionary forces, wreckers and saboteurs, unenlightened reactionaries attempting to subvert Progress. Right? That's the usual line. Why does the Emperor brag about his birthday suit? To demonstrate and exercise power, to remind those who dare not say the truth why they won't call out his bare ass; and bait those who will into a conflict on his terms.
Jeff_Brown 4y ago
I don't think they're synonyms. Propoganda is a much bigger category than fake news.
bena 4y ago
One day I hope to be surprised by the comments on topics like these. Today is not that day.
- mistermann 4y ago
  It's weird, eh? Do you think it might be useful to post one of these threads a month later with the intent being for people to engage in a meta analysis of the discussion here, the intent of the delay being to establish a state of "cooler heads"? Something like forced/intentional mindfulness/abstraction?
  - bena 4y ago
    I think it'll just be a retread of the same discussions and talking points as last time. There's never "cooler heads". If there were, you'd see when articles do get recycled and someone posts all of the previous discussions. Or when similar topics get brought up. This is not the first time that "fake news" has been brought up here. And yet, every time, the same voices can be counted on to make the exact same points despite all evidence saying they are wrong. There are topics that probably should just be not allowed on HN due to how they bring down the overall level of discourse. But you know that would be the bogeyman of mean ol censorship. But you know, the comment threshold, flagging, shadow-banning, etc are somehow not. If you're going to moderate, moderate.
    - mistermann 4y ago
      I think we're not completely on the same page: I'm not saying we should repost the article itself, but rather repost discussions threads about articles (perhaps with names anonymized and the non-anonomized original post delisted temporarily to prevent cheating), and the task at hand being: nitpick the silliness of our former selves. > And yet, every time, the same voices can be counted on to make the exact same points despite all evidence saying they are wrong. Indeed, and many of them are surprisingly silly considering the intelligence on this site. Certain topics can throw very powerful minds into disarray and delusion, and this phenomenon plausibly can cause great harm, why not study it!!?? Do we really care about the wellbeing of humanity, or are we just here to concern troll? > There are topics that probably should just be not allowed on HN due to how they bring down the overall level of discourse. But you know that would be the bogeyman of mean ol censorship. But you know, the comment threshold, flagging, shadow-banning, etc are somehow not. If you're going to moderate, moderate. Alternatively, this community (and its leadership) could be a little daring and see if it can walk its impressive talk. From prior conversations I'm pretty confident leadership "wouldn't be interested" in this sort of thing, but it would be fun to see a grassroots effort at it, and even more fun if it got shut down for "reasons".

17 points by panax 4y ago

"This paper argues that online fake news threatens democratic processes because it undermines citizens’ epistemic trust in each other. This in turn threatens to undermine the perceived legitimacy of democratic institutions as a whole." "Major democratic institutions have correctly identified fake news as a threat to their values and processes. However, the danger posed by these online falsehoods does not primarily lie in their power to convince readers of the veracity of their factually incorrect content. Rather, the primary danger fake news poses to democratic values and institutions lies in the corrosive effect it has on trust among citizens and thus on citizens’ trust in their democracy." "online fake news threatens democratic values and processes by playing a crucial role in reducing the perceived legitimacy of democratic institutions. This decrease in perceived legitimacy is the outcome of the primary effect that fake news has on citizens: even if its content is not believed, fake news can be a major cause of a loss of citizens’ epistemic trust in each other’s political views and judgment. Such a loss of trust in each other is problematic for democratic institutions since these rely for their acceptance and functioning on citizens seeing them as morally justified. Critiques of fake news often focus on citizens’ loss of trust in their mainstream media. While this is indeed part of the problem, I will argue that the main threat of fake news pertains to the loss of epistemic trust citizens have in each other. Fake news is thus a moral problem insofar as we think of democracies as a morally special, or at least a particularly valuable, form of government. This paper is significant because unlike most discussions of fake news that assume that citizens are likely to accept these falsehoods as true it takes seriously the empirical studies that assert that most people do not believe the content of fake news and explains why we should nonetheless consider fake news a morally significant problem."

st-keller 4y ago
If you kill the truth, then there are no facts. If nobody has facts, they must trust someone to lead them. Then you can rule. To get rid of a democracy, you habe to kill the truth first. Timothy Snyder
- seti0Cha 4y ago
  Nonsense. When have people not trusted others to tell them what's true? When have they not been manipulated as a result? If that kills democracy, then it was dead from birth. Democracy persists, imperfect though it is, despite these facts. If it dies, it won't be because someone "invented" fake news. It's more likely to die because people believe it can't safely be practiced because of things like fake news.
mikece 4y ago
The problem with fighting "fake news" is that I've not seen a coherent definition of what "fake news" even is, much less a consistent definition among the media of what "truth" is or if it's an objective or relative standard. "News" sources these days have to get ratings/views/clicks/engagement in order to sell advertising which is an inherent conflict of interest against the idea of simply informing the reader/listener/viewer. As dependent as news outlets are on advertising do you think they are going to run afoul of their biggest buyers of ads (Big Pharma and the defense industry)? "Fake news" cannot be fixed until the funding model for news is fixed.
- mc32 4y ago
  Especially problematic are so-called "fact-checking" services which often rely on technicalities to declare something true or false. "It was so hot everyone went to the beach" False, there are reports a few grandparents did not go to the beach. "Not everyone received the reimbursement" False, although not everyone received the re-imbursements, you can re-apply for the re-imbursements in order to receive them. And this is why few people use them to change their minds and either serve to reinforce what they believe or reinforce their belief to not believe their conclusions.
- nh23423fefe 4y ago
  This isn't true. "Fake news" is an imitation of news. News is what we all know news is. A product that presents information. There is entertainment news, celebrity news, movie news, music news. But "the news" is usually current events or politics. Everyone knows "fake news" means fake political news. An imitation of a format we all recognize. Pretending you cant tell the difference is "fake commenting". You are pretending to discuss coherence and truth and objectivity. But really you dont care. You aren't defending fake news on the merits. You are saying, "there isn't any such thing as news, so how can this other stuff be fake." Its crap and not a real comment. It isn't even an original thought.
  - mikece 4y ago
    Simply having a scoop before everyone else can get you labeled as fake news. Happens almost daily in the world of sports news where some journalist reports on a tip that such-and-such player is going to be traded or is injured or going to be suspended but the official team PR people will deny it -- not because they are lying but because they simply don't know (yet). So in this case the team's official PR person denying the story causes the reported tip to be deemed "fake news" until the truth of the matter comes out later. My point in this example is that the accusation of fake news is by no means limited to politics or hard-news per se: it can apply to any situation where the speed at which people learn something happens at different speeds, especially before the official news/PR people for an organization even know.

AnnoyedComment 4y ago

thepasswordis 4y ago

triceratops 4y ago
He was impeached for withholding military aid to Ukraine. Which Russia is now invading. Does it matter if he was literally an asset or not, given he pretty much played the part anyway?
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Does it matter if he was literally an asset or not Does what is actually true matter, at least plausibly, all things considered?
- thepasswordis 4y ago
  This is exactly the problem with fake news. It sticks around, and you've been caught by it. It seems likely that this fake news has influenced your ability to make rational decisions about how you vote, etc. This is a huge problem for democracy. No he did not withhold military aid from Ukraine. In fact in the initial offensive, the javelin missiles that they were effectively using against Russian tanks came from the Trump administration. And in fact Trump was highly critical of the previous administration for "only sending blankets", which was something he was called a hawk for. AND NOT ONLY THAT but one of the major points of Trump's presidency was criticizing European/NATO nations for not spending enough on their defense; specifically warning that Russia was going to use their dependence on Russian natgas, and lack of military spending, to Russia's advantage. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k
  - somebehemoth 4y ago
    Trump's chief of staff at he time, Mick Mulvaney: "Mulvaney added: "Did he also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that's it. And that's why we held up the money." ABC News' Jonathan Karl immediately followed up and asked Mulvaney to confirm that "the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine." Mulvaney replied affirmatively, saying that "the look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation." https://www.businessinsider.com/mick-mulvaney-confirms-trump-held-ukraine-aid-for-investigation-2019-10?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/mick-mulvaney-confirms-trump...

ekianjo 4y ago

Its as if they dont realize that fake news is not only the product of crazy people online. How many hoaxes from recognized institutions like the NYT do you need before you stop trusting just anything?

nh23423fefe 4y ago
Why would I trust nothing? the NYT isn't a monolithic actor with a singular mind. what you propose is meaningless.
- kodah 4y ago
  The NYT does run, centrally, what they call "narratives" which I think is what people are referencing here. This has apparently been in practice for quite some time but only has been a point of discussion as people leave.
- HKH2 4y ago
  > the NYT isn't a monolithic actor with a singular mind. Isn't there an editor?
h2odragon 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty https://www.historyonthenet.com/walter-duranty-new-york-times https://www.historyonthenet.com/walter-duranty-new-york-time...
insightcheck 4y ago
Alternatively, one can think critically on a case-by-case basis, instead of either trusting nothing at all or giving uncritical trust based on a source.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > one can think critically on a case-by-case basis That's easy to say. If all of your sources are poisoned with narratives and misrepresentation (in one way or another), you basically don't have any anchor to make proper judgment.

wikitopian 4y ago

The conceit that there's some objective "not fake news" out there to which "fake news" doesn't measure up is fake news. News reporting is integrally and inextricably laden with bias, motive, and perspective. The 20th century corporate media monopoly which purported to be the ministry of truth is dead, and lamenting over its grave won't bring it back to life.

Xeoncross 4y ago
"all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" - George Orwell I think it comes back to the fact that some views are absolutely wrong in all cultures at all times. However those are often not what is being discussed. Many popular topics are actually collections of trade offs vilified by the opposing parties.
washbrain 4y ago
Yes, all outlets are biased. It is literally impossible to have a neutral news source. But there's a world of difference between, say, a random article on the BBC and Alex Jones saying the kids in Sandy Hook were crisis actors. I think we can agree that there is a material difference there.
- Dma54rhs 4y ago
  You're not wrong, but I personally would like to see the job of being a reporter like public defendant, a lawyer, judge. Sure none of those are non biased either, but at least people try to hold on to that ideal. This seems like a lazy defense of bad reporters who turned out to become propagandists instead.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- LewisVerstappen 4y ago
  > a random article on the BBC and Alex Jones saying the kids in Sandy Hook were crisis actors A tiny fraction of people follow Alex Jones and the vast majority disagree (or have no idea who he is). I have yet to see someone who actually believes the kids in Sandy Hook were crisis actors. The reality is that the US corporate media (literally billion dollar media companies like NY Times or WaPo) are angry about losing their monopoly on what the "truth" is. Now, they have to compete with independent journalists publishing on Substack/YouTube (read how critical the NY Times is of Substack. It's absurd.). They're trying to get YouTube/Facebook/Twitter to censor anyone who's not "an expert", where they get to decide who counts as an expert. So, the media is trying to push a narrative that Alex Jones is a bigger threat than he really is. They're also trying to paint all independent media as Alex Jones-type so they can maintain their monopoly on the truth. Meanwhile, they continue to run million dollar marketing campaigns where they're trying convince everyone that they're the truth ("Democracy Dies in Darkness"). Frankly, the media did the exact same thing with Trump in 2016 (and continue to do so). Trump was a fringe character during the beginning of the RNC for the 2016 election and Jeb Bush was the frontrunner. The media (left especially) proceeded to talk about Trump 24/7 and give him unlimited free air time (and they got a ratings bump in return). They took someone who was a fringe character and made him seem like the mainstream. The Streisand Effect kicked in and Trump immediately shot up in the polls. Then, when Trump ended up winning, the media pretended they had 0 culpability and spun up a false narrative that the Russian interference gave Trump the victory (The Russians interfered, but their interference wasn't what swung the election, it was a laughable attempt if you read their strategies. The media talking about Trump 24/7 was what gave him the victory).

illuminerdy 4y ago

Let's face it, the only reason that 'fake news' exists in its current form is because the corporate media has done such a piss-poor job of holding to journalistic ethics, which has been declining steadily for decades. If people actually had an alternative that they thought they could trust, there would not be a market for 'fake news' (which sometimes turns out to just be the whole, unbiased facts presented in opposition to the agenda-driven and manipulated 'news' of the legacy media).

watwut 4y ago
Fake news fairly often originate in corporate media, including Fox and talk radio networks.
- illuminerdy 4y ago
  I don't disagree, but I have two issues when people bring up Fox and news radio. Fox is a single entity, and let's be fair in terms of conservative/Republican vs liberal/Democrat, the split between media outlets is like 80/20 in favor of the latter. So when people focus on Fox they're ignoring 80% of the lies and half-truths that are put out there. Because that's done by outlets like MSNBC and CNN and your local outlets. The second issue is that, unlike many liberal outlets, Fox at least brings on actual liberals to push back or give differing opinions. On the other hand you have companies like the BBC who are literally banning opposing views on topics like the environment and coronavirus.
tzs 4y ago
People do have an alternative they think they can trust: Facebook and other social media sites.
- illuminerdy 4y ago
  You mean the social media sites that made every effort to suppress stories that reflected poorly on Democrats during the last election (and before)? Anyone who trusts Big Tech, social media, or Late Night talk shows to give them factual information deserves to have their voting status revoked. I'm joking, but I'm kinda not.

h2odragon 4y ago

Fake news is the responsibility of anti-revolutionary forces, wreckers and saboteurs, unenlightened reactionaries attempting to subvert Progress. Right? That's the usual line. Why does the Emperor brag about his birthday suit? To demonstrate and exercise power, to remind those who dare not say the truth why they won't call out his bare ass; and bait those who will into a conflict on his terms.

Jeff_Brown 4y ago

I don't think they're synonyms. Propoganda is a much bigger category than fake news.

bena 4y ago

One day I hope to be surprised by the comments on topics like these. Today is not that day.

mistermann 4y ago
It's weird, eh? Do you think it might be useful to post one of these threads a month later with the intent being for people to engage in a meta analysis of the discussion here, the intent of the delay being to establish a state of "cooler heads"? Something like forced/intentional mindfulness/abstraction?
- bena 4y ago
  I think it'll just be a retread of the same discussions and talking points as last time. There's never "cooler heads". If there were, you'd see when articles do get recycled and someone posts all of the previous discussions. Or when similar topics get brought up. This is not the first time that "fake news" has been brought up here. And yet, every time, the same voices can be counted on to make the exact same points despite all evidence saying they are wrong. There are topics that probably should just be not allowed on HN due to how they bring down the overall level of discourse. But you know that would be the bogeyman of mean ol censorship. But you know, the comment threshold, flagging, shadow-banning, etc are somehow not. If you're going to moderate, moderate.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    I think we're not completely on the same page: I'm not saying we should repost the article itself, but rather repost discussions threads about articles (perhaps with names anonymized and the non-anonomized original post delisted temporarily to prevent cheating), and the task at hand being: nitpick the silliness of our former selves. > And yet, every time, the same voices can be counted on to make the exact same points despite all evidence saying they are wrong. Indeed, and many of them are surprisingly silly considering the intelligence on this site. Certain topics can throw very powerful minds into disarray and delusion, and this phenomenon plausibly can cause great harm, why not study it!!?? Do we really care about the wellbeing of humanity, or are we just here to concern troll? > There are topics that probably should just be not allowed on HN due to how they bring down the overall level of discourse. But you know that would be the bogeyman of mean ol censorship. But you know, the comment threshold, flagging, shadow-banning, etc are somehow not. If you're going to moderate, moderate. Alternatively, this community (and its leadership) could be a little daring and see if it can walk its impressive talk. From prior conversations I'm pretty confident leadership "wouldn't be interested" in this sort of thing, but it would be fun to see a grassroots effort at it, and even more fun if it got shut down for "reasons".