This is an obvious, cliche truth: - We love to tell stories But then you have to apply it to intentionally deceptive and fake content. See the missing gap? Mo

This is an obvious, cliche truth: - We love to tell stories But then you have to apply it to intentionally deceptive and fake content. See the missing gap? Most of the time we tell each other stories knowing that they are stories. So how does that link up with people telling “stories” for the purpose of making others believe it is real? I don’t think this book-promotional manages to bridge that gap. The good-old-days before broadband Internet wasn’t real, either. It was whatever the TV said it was. Oh, but that was just one or a few truths, so then we can pretend that it was the truth. But that truth was firmly on the side of the Establishment so academics and the like were pretty comfortable with it. There’s this idea associated with Jean Baudrillard that the real Gulf War happened on CNN. That was the Hyperreality of that event. You might have experienced the war in a crammed cockpit but you would have to wait until you got home to really experience it. > And it wasn’t fake images or manipulated images that appear plausible, as in the “perfect fake” revising history. It was more these outrageous meme-style images, which is what most of the manipulated content is online. Much of that is perfectly innocent. Some of it, of course is political, but a lot of that is parody or satire. So in other words, someone video-manipulated Trump (in a suit) into a wrestling match, beating his opponent with a chair and flinging him out of the ring? A clearly fictional story? And this is connected to “fakes” how??? Ridiculous.