4 ms·

When people say "fake news" it means different things to different people. "Hunter Biden's laptop is a Russian plant" was considered the truth and anything to

When people say "fake news" it means different things to different people. "Hunter Biden's laptop is a Russian plant" was considered the truth and anything to the contrary "fake news". It wasn't just a mistake, it was a hard lie. Having any single entity determine what is "fake" and what is "real" is incredibly dangerous. We can't even agree if 72F degrees is the correct room temperature - let alone complex things like abortion or if fat is bad for you. To have any authority say one side is correct fails to understand how the structures of scientific revolution work. Much more likely they do understand and are using "Science(TM)" to force ideological agendas. Full disclosure: I have never used Facebook.

melkor73 2y ago
On the other hand, allowing political propaganda with no factual basis to be broadcast indiscriminately is arguably more dangerous. https://rwandanstories.org/genocide/hate_radio.html https://rwandanstories.org/genocide/hate_radio.html The real money quote from that article: "David Rawson, the US ambassador, said that its euphemisms were open to interpretation. The US, he said, believed in freedom of speech."
robertlagrant 2y ago
Yes, I think this is a proxy for "how much do you watch your usual news source". The Covington stuff wouldn't have made people think twice about regular news had the video of what happened leaked out on YouTube.
nonameiguess 2y ago
I don't want to be overly cynical and say it was intentional, but the term was watered down to become meaningless, but when it first came into use, it had a pretty clear and unambiguous meaning that I don't think any reasonable person would argue with. The Washington Post published an expose early in 2016 about two men in Orange County who had the brilliant idea of exploiting pre-election hysteria by registering hundreds of domains with names like patriotdailynews.com, giving it all the veneer of a real news page, writer bylines and bios, but all of it was completely made up. It was just the two guys in their apartment living room brainstorming the most outrageous sounding headlines they could come up that they thought people might believe, then making up fake writers and fake sources. That is "fake news." When it started being used to mean any published account of purported facts that is wrong because inference is imperfect, evidence can be misleading, and publishers have some inescapable level of bias, then yes, it became a useless term. But it is not useless to distinguish between largely good faith attempts by real organizations with investigators who are at least trying to discover, verify, and publish facts, but some of the time fail, and outright fraud committed by people making up the entire endeavor wholesale. There is no reason at all we should believe authorities cannot accomplish the latter.
- coolhand2120 2y ago
  A democracy with the government in control of speech is not a democracy. If you control what people can see, you control what they think. That's why it's the very first most important amendment. Without the free distribution of information we're all useless idiots to the people in control of the distribution. We've already seen censorship be used to sway elections, do you think that's OK?

melkor73 2y ago

On the other hand, allowing political propaganda with no factual basis to be broadcast indiscriminately is arguably more dangerous. https://rwandanstories.org/genocide/hate_radio.html https://rwandanstories.org/genocide/hate_radio.html The real money quote from that article: "David Rawson, the US ambassador, said that its euphemisms were open to interpretation. The US, he said, believed in freedom of speech."

robertlagrant 2y ago

Yes, I think this is a proxy for "how much do you watch your usual news source". The Covington stuff wouldn't have made people think twice about regular news had the video of what happened leaked out on YouTube.

nonameiguess 2y ago

I don't want to be overly cynical and say it was intentional, but the term was watered down to become meaningless, but when it first came into use, it had a pretty clear and unambiguous meaning that I don't think any reasonable person would argue with. The Washington Post published an expose early in 2016 about two men in Orange County who had the brilliant idea of exploiting pre-election hysteria by registering hundreds of domains with names like patriotdailynews.com, giving it all the veneer of a real news page, writer bylines and bios, but all of it was completely made up. It was just the two guys in their apartment living room brainstorming the most outrageous sounding headlines they could come up that they thought people might believe, then making up fake writers and fake sources. That is "fake news." When it started being used to mean any published account of purported facts that is wrong because inference is imperfect, evidence can be misleading, and publishers have some inescapable level of bias, then yes, it became a useless term. But it is not useless to distinguish between largely good faith attempts by real organizations with investigators who are at least trying to discover, verify, and publish facts, but some of the time fail, and outright fraud committed by people making up the entire endeavor wholesale. There is no reason at all we should believe authorities cannot accomplish the latter.

coolhand2120 2y ago
A democracy with the government in control of speech is not a democracy. If you control what people can see, you control what they think. That's why it's the very first most important amendment. Without the free distribution of information we're all useless idiots to the people in control of the distribution. We've already seen censorship be used to sway elections, do you think that's OK?