5 ms·

What is 'fake news' for one person is truth to another. What it boils down to is who decides what is the truth and whether they have the right to censor everyt

by p1dda 2y ago

What is 'fake news' for one person is truth to another. What it boils down to is who decides what is the truth and whether they have the right to censor everything and everybody else. In the 90's, the internet came as a salvation for free speech because now everybody got to have their voice heard. I definitely don't like this trend of censorship, it's not what our western democracy is built upon.

akie 2y ago
It is not censorship to point out and correct falsehoods. Without a common understanding of the world around us, at least in terms of what is true or not, what hope can we have to come to a political consensus?
gbnvc 2y ago
No these superspreaders know what they’re writing is lies. I don’t really understand how holding people accountable for their actions is censorship, unaccountability is just censoring the victims.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  The problem is that if applied rigourously, this would also mean banning all mainstream outlets.
  - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
    What a ridiculous false equivalence. Before the russians invaded, Western mainstream media reported that the russians were preparing to invade Ukraine. Mainstream media [kremlin propaganda] in the russian federation mocked Western mainstream media and insisted that the russians weren't about to invade. The two are not the same.
techsupporter 2y ago
> What is 'fake news' for one person is truth to another. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Everyone from Daniel Patrick Moynihan all the way through to Mike Pence. There are some things that are demonstrably true and untrue. Society gains nothing, and loses much, by simply throwing up our hands and saying "well, nothing to be done!" in the face of this. > who decides what is the truth and whether they have the right to censor everything and everybody else That is one heck of a leap. Screaming the cries of censorship when faced with people who disagree--either on your point, your presentation of your point, or the facts underlying your point--is escaping to a place where your position is no longer the one being debated, it's the "terms of the debate." Thus, one no longer needs to defend their position; they can simply stand to the side and feign being the actual aggrieved party. > I definitely don't like this trend of censorship, it's not what our western democracy is built upon. It is not censorship. Censorship is not saying "you are incorrect about this and I am calling you out for it and encouraging others to take note of your being incorrect." Heck, censorship is not even being shouted down for one's beliefs. If you say something and other people yell at--or praise!--you for it, that's not censorship. This article alone says there is no active censorship since people can, and do, merrily spread incorrect statements and half-baked "just asking questions" that even the Weekly World News would have found too preposterous to print.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Everyone from Daniel Patrick Moynihan all the way through to Mike Pence. Is there any evidence either of them believe that view to be a fact? Politicians routinely make up their own facts. In practice people are actually entitled to their own facts. There are mechanisms to mediate disagreements as best we can but we rely on a certain amount of goodwill rather than an ability to determine the truth.
  - macintux 2y ago
    Historically I would argue politicians interpreted facts in their favor more than they created their own facts. Certain demagogues are fond of nonstop lying, but in U.S. politics that hasn’t been the dominant approach until recently. It’s dramatically harder to compromise on governance when Congress stops agreeing on facts, instead of how to interpret facts and what conclusions to draw from them.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      > Historically I would argue politicians interpreted facts in their favor more than they created their own facts. Different pronunciations of the same word; what they do is a juvenile ritual on top of lying. They don't observe facts neutrally or build a solid argument that they test against reality, they start with the conclusion and work out what they need to say to get other people there. And I'm not saying it is a failing on the part of politicians - the voters demand that sort of behaviour from them. But if that is acceptable, flat lying is acceptable. The intent and outcome aren't different as long as bargains are honoured. > It’s dramatically harder to compromise on governance when Congress stops agreeing on facts, instead of how to interpret facts and what conclusions to draw from them. I don't know if there is any particular evidence that is a bad thing. The main lesson from the 2000s and 2010s was if Congress is united on a course of action it is probably going to be a disaster. The US still hasn't managed to shake off the PATRIOT act or clean out the secret law court that was established. We seem to be well into a trend where every president will be subject to a spying campaign before entering office. The US economy has been out-capitaled by literal communists in China. It seems like an excellent time to have someone challenging the basic facts that the congress has been agreeing on.
yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
Except for when it's very obviously bullshit, like the number of vatniks who insisted that the russians weren't going to invade Ukraine, or that insisted the russians hadn't invaded Ukraine even after tanks were halfway to Kyiv. The fact is, there are many bullshitters, and their bullshit isn't up for interpretation as you suggest.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Even in that case, the people posting those statements probably believed that at the time.
  - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
    Really? You think the foreign minister of the russian federation — the longest serving since the Tsarist era — doesn't know what's happening in his own country?
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      Obviously political appointees are going to be unreliable, I was more talking about the hordes of plebs on social media.
      - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
        Where do you think they get their misinformation?
jemmyw 2y ago
It's news that's untrue and made up, rather than mistaken reporting. I know we can never know real truth in all circumstances, and there'll always be situations of vagueness and ambiguity. But there's still the things that did happen, to some level of veracity, and the things that people made up. The dissemination of shit people have made up while also lying and saying it's the truth does seem to present a problem.
- BoingBoomTschak 2y ago
  Unless people are caught red-handed fabricating those, how can you know it's fake? You think that cross-referencing or having "reliable sources" like Wikipedia will help you know what's going on on the other side of world (e.g Ukraine/Russia)? It's probable even the people in the involved countries don't truly know what's going on. The only facts are what I can perceive with my own senses and what comes directly from people I know enough to have a judgment I consider reliable on their trustworthiness. Fact is that entities using the expression fake news are often not better than the ones they accuse.
  - alpaca128 2y ago
    > The only facts are what I can perceive with my own senses Our perception and memories are known to be very unreliable.
  - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
    The russian federation have repeatedly been shown to produce fake news. Massive amounts of fake news. Suggesting that nobody can really know the difference between fantasy and reality is a misinformation tactic used by the kremlin to create more useful idiots who suggest the same.
    - BoingBoomTschak 2y ago
      Can you imagine that "the kremlin" says the same to its population? Why do you think your own powers that be are any different? Reading your comments in this thread, I know beforehand that my replying will be useless, but I'm bored.
gorbachev 2y ago
1+1=17122

by p1dda 2y ago

akie 2y ago

It is not censorship to point out and correct falsehoods. Without a common understanding of the world around us, at least in terms of what is true or not, what hope can we have to come to a political consensus?

gbnvc 2y ago

No these superspreaders know what they’re writing is lies. I don’t really understand how holding people accountable for their actions is censorship, unaccountability is just censoring the victims.

HPsquared 2y ago
The problem is that if applied rigourously, this would also mean banning all mainstream outlets.
- yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
  What a ridiculous false equivalence. Before the russians invaded, Western mainstream media reported that the russians were preparing to invade Ukraine. Mainstream media [kremlin propaganda] in the russian federation mocked Western mainstream media and insisted that the russians weren't about to invade. The two are not the same.

techsupporter 2y ago

> What is 'fake news' for one person is truth to another. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Everyone from Daniel Patrick Moynihan all the way through to Mike Pence. There are some things that are demonstrably true and untrue. Society gains nothing, and loses much, by simply throwing up our hands and saying "well, nothing to be done!" in the face of this. > who decides what is the truth and whether they have the right to censor everything and everybody else That is one heck of a leap. Screaming the cries of censorship when faced with people who disagree--either on your point, your presentation of your point, or the facts underlying your point--is escaping to a place where your position is no longer the one being debated, it's the "terms of the debate." Thus, one no longer needs to defend their position; they can simply stand to the side and feign being the actual aggrieved party. > I definitely don't like this trend of censorship, it's not what our western democracy is built upon. It is not censorship. Censorship is not saying "you are incorrect about this and I am calling you out for it and encouraging others to take note of your being incorrect." Heck, censorship is not even being shouted down for one's beliefs. If you say something and other people yell at--or praise!--you for it, that's not censorship. This article alone says there is no active censorship since people can, and do, merrily spread incorrect statements and half-baked "just asking questions" that even the Weekly World News would have found too preposterous to print.

roenxi 2y ago
> "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Everyone from Daniel Patrick Moynihan all the way through to Mike Pence. Is there any evidence either of them believe that view to be a fact? Politicians routinely make up their own facts. In practice people are actually entitled to their own facts. There are mechanisms to mediate disagreements as best we can but we rely on a certain amount of goodwill rather than an ability to determine the truth.
- macintux 2y ago
  Historically I would argue politicians interpreted facts in their favor more than they created their own facts. Certain demagogues are fond of nonstop lying, but in U.S. politics that hasn’t been the dominant approach until recently. It’s dramatically harder to compromise on governance when Congress stops agreeing on facts, instead of how to interpret facts and what conclusions to draw from them.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > Historically I would argue politicians interpreted facts in their favor more than they created their own facts. Different pronunciations of the same word; what they do is a juvenile ritual on top of lying. They don't observe facts neutrally or build a solid argument that they test against reality, they start with the conclusion and work out what they need to say to get other people there. And I'm not saying it is a failing on the part of politicians - the voters demand that sort of behaviour from them. But if that is acceptable, flat lying is acceptable. The intent and outcome aren't different as long as bargains are honoured. > It’s dramatically harder to compromise on governance when Congress stops agreeing on facts, instead of how to interpret facts and what conclusions to draw from them. I don't know if there is any particular evidence that is a bad thing. The main lesson from the 2000s and 2010s was if Congress is united on a course of action it is probably going to be a disaster. The US still hasn't managed to shake off the PATRIOT act or clean out the secret law court that was established. We seem to be well into a trend where every president will be subject to a spying campaign before entering office. The US economy has been out-capitaled by literal communists in China. It seems like an excellent time to have someone challenging the basic facts that the congress has been agreeing on.

yakshaving_jgt 2y ago

Except for when it's very obviously bullshit, like the number of vatniks who insisted that the russians weren't going to invade Ukraine, or that insisted the russians hadn't invaded Ukraine even after tanks were halfway to Kyiv. The fact is, there are many bullshitters, and their bullshit isn't up for interpretation as you suggest.

HPsquared 2y ago
Even in that case, the people posting those statements probably believed that at the time.
- yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
  Really? You think the foreign minister of the russian federation — the longest serving since the Tsarist era — doesn't know what's happening in his own country?
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    Obviously political appointees are going to be unreliable, I was more talking about the hordes of plebs on social media.
    - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
      Where do you think they get their misinformation?

jemmyw 2y ago

It's news that's untrue and made up, rather than mistaken reporting. I know we can never know real truth in all circumstances, and there'll always be situations of vagueness and ambiguity. But there's still the things that did happen, to some level of veracity, and the things that people made up. The dissemination of shit people have made up while also lying and saying it's the truth does seem to present a problem.

BoingBoomTschak 2y ago
Unless people are caught red-handed fabricating those, how can you know it's fake? You think that cross-referencing or having "reliable sources" like Wikipedia will help you know what's going on on the other side of world (e.g Ukraine/Russia)? It's probable even the people in the involved countries don't truly know what's going on. The only facts are what I can perceive with my own senses and what comes directly from people I know enough to have a judgment I consider reliable on their trustworthiness. Fact is that entities using the expression fake news are often not better than the ones they accuse.
- alpaca128 2y ago
  > The only facts are what I can perceive with my own senses Our perception and memories are known to be very unreliable.
- yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
  The russian federation have repeatedly been shown to produce fake news. Massive amounts of fake news. Suggesting that nobody can really know the difference between fantasy and reality is a misinformation tactic used by the kremlin to create more useful idiots who suggest the same.
  - BoingBoomTschak 2y ago
    Can you imagine that "the kremlin" says the same to its population? Why do you think your own powers that be are any different? Reading your comments in this thread, I know beforehand that my replying will be useless, but I'm bored.

gorbachev 2y ago

1+1=17122