Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

so a question about the whole "fake news" thing, how likely will it lead to government controlled and run news media and how bad do you think it will it be?

The whole fake news stuff has been worse, if it didn't spark the creation of a state run or funded media for internal consumption in the US then, it certainly isn't going to now.

[Guardian G.I.]

so a question about the whole "fake news" thing, how likely will it lead to government controlled and run news media and how bad do you think it will it be?

I don't think it'll result in a state-run media in the US, but bans are likely. RT and the like won't be allowed to operate openly after this.

An example of a democratic country with such politically-motivated restrictions is South Korea, where all North Korean media is jammed or blocked in accordance with the National Security Act of 1948. Political organizations deemed to be "pro-Northern" are routinely banned, and from what I've read, people were arrested for stuff like having North Korean songs on their PCs.

In my opinion, USA and especially the EU will likely adopt a similar stance against Russian/pro-Russian/anti-establishment media, but I'm not sure how severe it'll be. It will certainly depend on the international situation - the more the confrontation between Russia and the West escalates, the more repressive measures will be enacted.

[Lord Shonus]

That might be possible in Europe, but not in the US. Censorship boards are so anathema that establishing them would practically required gutting the government completely. Even the worst excesses of McCarthyism didn't involve government censorship, with the Hollywood Blackist and similar measures being instituted by the studios for pubic relations reasons.

[Reelya]

so a question about the whole "fake news" thing, how likely will it lead to government controlled and run news media and how bad do you think it will it be?

It won't end up like that at all. Let's look at what Fake News is, and what it isn't. Fake news isn't misleading news from actual publications, it's not "spin" or "bias" either. FOX might be misleading, but if they mention an event or case, you can be fairly sure it exists.

What Fake News was, was completely made-up stories designed to damage a political rival, then disguised by creating a bogus "news" website purporting to be a mainstream paper or similar. So it's pure propaganda / smear campaigns disguised as news stories, but not derived or linked to actual publications. It's basically like The Onion except designed to create fear and hate instead of laughs, and with a catchy headline designed to appeal to a target group and get them to repost it without looking into it's validity (people don't tend to closely check things they agree with).

The problem really started when Facebook stopped using human editors and started using algorithms. No surprise: the algorithms can't tell junk from news stories, so people worked out how to "game the system" to make fabricated stories trend, with headlines designed to damage political rivals.

The fake publisher is important: it hides the partisan nature of the source. e.g. if people want to make Breitbart stories trend on facebook, go for it. Everyone knows that Breitbart are a partisan news source. That's why these stories fabricate a "legit sounding" publisher that doesn't actually exists: to whitewash partisan smear campaigns as non-partisan "news".

So, no amount of legislation is going to fix this, it's a tech issue where the algorithms used for news feeds aren't smart enough to tell something written by a journalist (of any sort) from the random babblings of a loon in their mom's basement. What's going to mitigate this is not laws, but Facebook or similar developing basic source-checker bots, which backtrack links looking for dubious websites, or can detect non-existent details in a story (such as referencing a non-existent town).

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/college-kids-write-algorithm-that-detects-fake-facebook-news-w451791

[Rockphed]

The fake publisher is important: it hides the partisan nature of the source. e.g. if people want to make Breitbart stories trend on facebook, go for it. Everyone knows that Breitbart are a partisan news source. That's why these stories fabricate a "legit sounding" publisher that doesn't actually exists: to whitewash partisan smear campaigns as non-partisan "news".

So, no amount of legislation is going to fix this, it's a tech issue where the algorithms used for news feeds aren't smart enough to tell something written by a journalist (of any sort) from the random babblings of a loon in their mom's basement. What's going to mitigate this is not laws, but Facebook or similar developing basic source-checker bots, which backtrack links looking for dubious websites, or can detect non-existent details in a story (such as referencing a non-existent town).

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/college-kids-write-algorithm-that-detects-fake-facebook-news-w451791

See, the problem people have with that isn't if facebook suppresses the actually fake and stupid sites.  It is that people don't trust facebook to stop there.  Youtube already tries to do something similar, and conservative leaning channels are being blocked when similar left-wing channels are not.  I don't use twitter, but I understand that there have been attempts by left-wing groups to get right-wing users banned as "hate speech".  Some of the triggering remarks were things like pointing out the murder rates among black men between 18 and 36.  Or that the founder of Planned Parenthood had as her express goal the elimination of minorities.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Or that the founder of Planned Parenthood had as her express goal the elimination of minorities.

That's not true.

Stop spreading fake news. 

[Sheb]

The fake publisher is important: it hides the partisan nature of the source. e.g. if people want to make Breitbart stories trend on facebook, go for it. Everyone knows that Breitbart are a partisan news source. That's why these stories fabricate a "legit sounding" publisher that doesn't actually exists: to whitewash partisan smear campaigns as non-partisan "news".

So, no amount of legislation is going to fix this, it's a tech issue where the algorithms used for news feeds aren't smart enough to tell something written by a journalist (of any sort) from the random babblings of a loon in their mom's basement. What's going to mitigate this is not laws, but Facebook or similar developing basic source-checker bots, which backtrack links looking for dubious websites, or can detect non-existent details in a story (such as referencing a non-existent town).

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/college-kids-write-algorithm-that-detects-fake-facebook-news-w451791

See, the problem people have with that isn't if facebook suppresses the actually fake and stupid sites.  It is that people don't trust facebook to stop there.  Youtube already tries to do something similar, and conservative leaning channels are being blocked when similar left-wing channels are not.  I don't use twitter, but I understand that there have been attempts by left-wing groups to get right-wing users banned as "hate speech".  Some of the triggering remarks were things like pointing out the murder rates among black men between 18 and 36.  Or that the founder of Planned Parenthood had as her express goal the elimination of minorities.

I guess that's because you only hear from conservative sources, but I regularly see progressive friends complain their pages get suppressed after campaign of mass reports from right-wing groups.

[Sergarr]

Think EC is going to convene within the next 24 hours or so. What are the chances that enough of them will be intimidated enough by the intelligence services into voting the "right" way to make Trump lose?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Zero? I realize your Liberal Deus Vult phase is over now, but that's not how things happen. Trump will get far and clear over 270, Clinton will get most of her votes as well, a bunch of people will go faithless especially on the Republican side, and that one guy from Washington will bring Sanders back in the news for a few days by voting for him. DC might abstain in protest again.

[Phmcw]

Voat is pretty lost right now : a popular theory was that the recount was aiming at stealing the election and that Stein was being financed/corrupted by Soros.

But now that they constructed the load of small error into a proof of electoral manipulation from the Democrats, they are a bit lost trying to explain how it all ties up into a big machination. I'm sure they'll manage though. They are pretty smug about how they won the election in spite of the massive fraud, too.

[martinuzz]

Like Trump getting elected, you mean?

[Reelya]

See, the problem people have with that isn't if facebook suppresses the actually fake and stupid sites.  It is that people don't trust facebook to stop there.  Youtube already tries to do something similar, and conservative leaning channels are being blocked when similar left-wing channels are not.  I don't use twitter, but I understand that there have been attempts by left-wing groups to get right-wing users banned as "hate speech".  Some of the triggering remarks were things like pointing out the murder rates among black men between 18 and 36.  Or that the founder of Planned Parenthood had as her express goal the elimination of minorities.

... except for the fact that that thing about Margaret Sanger is a straight up forgery / fake story.
http://www.snopes.com/margaret-sanger-weeds/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics

Sanger’s view of eugenics was influenced by Havelock Ellis and other British eugenicists who held that environmentally acquired traits were inherited by one’s progeny.  Consequently, she rejected race and ethnicity as determining factors.  Instead she stressed limiting the number of births to live within one’s economic ability to raise and support healthy children. This would lead to a betterment of society and the human race.  Sanger’s view put her at odds with leading American eugenicists, such as Charles Davenport who took a racist view of inherited traits. She continually rejected their approach

And the whole point of bringing up the crime rate among blacks is to make a racist point. When economics is taken into account, it's found that poverty is the big predictor of violent crime, not race:
http://egov.ufsc.br/portal/sites/default/files/anexos/33027-41458-1-PB.pdf
http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/75/2/619

[Dorsidwarf]

Like Trump getting elected, you mean?

Hardly, I was saying that'd happen since the primaries.

I meant more the 'Trump is going to round up Muslims and put them in camps!' tripe.

Yeah but if you step back to late 2015 when Trump announced his bid, the opinion of 100% of the world was that D. Trump running for president was just a "look at me, look at me" stunt that would go nowhere.
Fast-forward a year and he's won.

[LoSboccacc]

Like Trump getting elected, you mean?

Hardly, I was saying that'd happen since the primaries.

I meant more the 'Trump is going to round up Muslims and put them in camps!' tripe.

Yeah but if you step back to late 2015 when Trump announced his bid, the opinion of 100% of the world was that D. Trump running for president was just a "look at me, look at me" stunt that would go nowhere.
Fast-forward a year and he's won.

there were smaller voices that were giving him plenty chance based on his opposition policies, overall economic situation of the country and the general anti-establishments sentiment of the electorate - and those voices all made excellent points and good arguments for an unexpected victory, while most of the detractors were pushing the 'lol nope' line of reasoning on mainstream media without going deeper than a puddle.

[penguinofhonor]

snip

Man, that Margaret Sanger factoid.

While I'm certainly concerned about overreactions to the fake news controversy, it seems pretty justified whenever I see someone say "But if we do something about fake news I won't be able to spread this lie anymore!"