Fake news

[Shadowy Man]

If journalism hadn't become so shoddy and sensationalistic, it wouldn't be so easy to fake.

 

[Malintent]

If "knowingly spreading misleading information" was illegal, we wouldn't have any of these problems.
It should be a computer crime to engage in the most egregious of these offenses.
In the case of electoral campaigns, it should be covered under Sedition laws.

 

[Trausti]

If "knowingly spreading misleading information" was illegal, we wouldn't have any of these problems.
It should be a computer crime to engage in the most egregious of these offenses.
In the case of electoral campaigns, it should be covered under Sedition laws.

And who gets to be the decider?

 

[DrZoidberg]

If "knowingly spreading misleading information" was illegal, we wouldn't have any of these problems.
It should be a computer crime to engage in the most egregious of these offenses.
In the case of electoral campaigns, it should be covered under Sedition laws.

And you are aware this would break democracy? Freedom of information means that there's nobody who checks the facts other than the citizens themselves. That's a really important feature of democracy. Without it there's no (liberal) democracy.

 

[funinspace]

Make Merika Fascist Again

If "knowingly spreading misleading information" was illegal, we wouldn't have any of these problems.
It should be a computer crime to engage in the most egregious of these offenses.
In the case of electoral campaigns, it should be covered under Sedition laws.

And you are aware this would break democracy? Freedom of information means that there's nobody who checks the facts other than the citizens themselves. That's a really important feature of democracy. Without it there's no (liberal) democracy.

Nasty Swede....

 

[another1]

It is definitely treason but which social media company should be beheaded first, and which others will it dissolve into after it dies? Doesn't seem like the type of thing you can stop without being realistic about the 2nd amendment, which shouldn't apply to social media.

Cutting down on advertising would be a nice compromise to shut us up for a while, while they gear up to penetrate our next orifice with even more horrifying ways to "connect". I'm so delighted that some censorship will finally happen but they can't police everything - so we'd all have to be cops to stop the stuff from happening. But see.. people are being cops right now with exposing fake news. They think they're doing something good but they contribute to the problem by creating even more fake news. So it is a catch 22 right?

 

[fromderinside]

Freedom of information means that there's nobody who checks the facts other than the citizens themselves.

Not true. Citizens may seek recourse, but, it is the courts that decide whether speech is free. Administrative agencies FCC, for instance rule on what is permissible over public licensed private media. Speech such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or "chocolate" in a crowded vat of chocolate is legally punishable. One might even say that announcing 'festival' seating at a venue where a large crowd is expected at a fenced event is also punishable. The point is free speech is nowhere near free in most societies larger than, say, a few hundred people.

Yet, even with these types of constraints. democracies exist and flourish.

 

[Bronzeage]

If "knowingly spreading misleading information" was illegal, we wouldn't have any of these problems.
It should be a computer crime to engage in the most egregious of these offenses.
In the case of electoral campaigns, it should be covered under Sedition laws.

In the United States, libel and slander law has always been based on truth and intent. If a person makes true statements about a person, it doesn't matter how much damage it does. There is no crime. If a person makes false statements about a person, it has to be done with malicious intent, for it to be a crime. If the speaker believes his statement to be a fact, as determined by the court, again no crime.

Then it gets really complicated. If the speaker does not believe anyone will take the statement as fact, it doesn't matter what he says. Larry Flint can publish a parody Whisky advertisement in which Jerry Falwell tells of losing his virginity to his mother in and outhouse, and there's nothing Jerry can do about it. I've seen it done.

Sedition is a tricky matter. Sedition is the act of talking bad about the government. I'm not sure we have sedition laws in the US. They tried it once, but it didn't work out. There are plenty of laws which deal with conspiracy to commit a crime, so if someone makes plans to blow up the Capitol, we have that covered. However, if someone says, "They ought to blow up the Capitol," that's okay.

Lying is only a crime in special circumstances. If all lying were prosecuted, we wouldn't have time for anything else.

 

[Juma]

Freedom of information means that there's nobody who checks the facts other than the citizens themselves.

Not true. Citizens may seek recourse, but, it is the courts that decide whether speech is free. Administrative agencies FCC, for instance rule on what is permissible over public licensed private media. Speech such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or "chocolate" in a crowded vat of chocolate is legally punishable. One might even say that announcing 'festival' seating at a venue where a large crowd is expected at a fenced event is also punishable. The point is free speech is nowhere near free in most societies larger than, say, a few hundred people.

Yet, even with these types of constraints. democracies exist and flourish.

Theese examples has very little to do with publicing news.

 

[Will Wiley]

How many more wars are you planning on supporting?

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/blg9XVBUEZg[/YOUTUBE]

This is another example of RT faking news. BBC did not "fake" anything, .

BBC changed the dialogue.

 

[barbos]

How many more wars are you planning on supporting?

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/blg9XVBUEZg[/YOUTUBE]

This is another example of RT faking news. BBC did not "fake" anything, they used a different clip in short news to avoid giving a false impression of what was going on, and the full clip in the documentary later on.

How exactly does it make that footage less fake?
Did BBC air clearly staged footage? Yes or No?

 

[barbos]

And just so everybody understands this. This is our fault. News agencies are in the business of selling news. Being trustworthy only has value if their readers value it and are willing to pay for it. The willingness to for it is critical. We're sliding over to a news landscape where news outlets are increasingly being dominated by agencies in the business of confirming biases. This type of news is way cheaper to produce. Because they don't need to check anything. They just need to be skilled writers.

When was the last time you paid for news? I haven't paid for news since the 90'ies. I may have bought an occasional copy of the Economist on some long flight, in case my phone would die. But that's it. So I'm also part of the problem. So I shouldn't complain to loudly.

Readers value news which agrees with their opinion. If readers think cats are cute they will have cute cats. If readers think Russia is bad then you will see Russia trashing.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If readers think Russia is bad then you will see Russia trashing.

I agree that news love a dichotomy with a clear bad guy. But I'd also argue that Russia under Putin is bad. Putin perhaps isn't as bad as he's portrayed in the news. But the stuff that we have solid evidence for that he's done is pretty damn awful. Also, a moot point. Just the fact that he's a de facto dictator makes any attempt to pretty his image up doomed to failure. Dictators need to go. If the guy steps down then we can talk. But as long as he clings to power then no. The guy is a similar kind of guy as Robert Mugabe. Popular when he first came to power. Then not so much.

 

[iolo]

If readers think Russia is bad then you will see Russia trashing.

I agree that news love a dichotomy with a clear bad guy. But I'd also argue that Russia under Putin is bad. Putin perhaps isn't as bad as he's portrayed in the news. But the stuff that we have solid evidence for that he's done is pretty damn awful. Also, a moot point. Just the fact that he's a de facto dictator makes any attempt to pretty his image up doomed to failure. Dictators need to go. If the guy steps down then we can talk. But as long as he clings to power then no. The guy is a similar kind of guy as Robert Mugabe. Popular when he first came to power. Then not so much.

As to Mugabe, blame the Smith regime, which some of us were desperate to smash - it made Mugabe a national hero, and such persons go senile. Putin is the result of reintroducing robber-baron thievery to steal the bits of state capitalism: the results were so gruesome that a dictator seemed preferable, I suppose.

 

[DrZoidberg]

As to Mugabe, blame the Smith regime, which some of us were desperate to smash - it made Mugabe a national hero, and such persons go senile. Putin is the result of reintroducing robber-baron thievery to steal the bits of state capitalism: the results were so gruesome that a dictator seemed preferable, I suppose.

No. I'm going to blame Mugabe for Mugabe. Smith created the environment where a man like Mugabe could rise to power. But at some point we've got to move on. We can't still today keep blaming the colonial powers for Africa's problems. It was over half a century ago.

BTW, there is a smarter explanation to Mugabe. In a strong economy there are plenty of alternative public sector jobs for ex-politicians. In a weak economy there's not much to do. What's Mugabe going to do? Go back to being a school teacher? This mechanic explains a lot about why developing countries keep getting leaders reluctant to lose power. In the West not being the prime minister any longer is great. It's always better to have been one that being one. They're all in it for all the perks once the job is over.

It's all about the incentives. Also, has got nothing to do with ideology. I suspect that the reason that Putin clings to power is because he has a very real and realistic and not paranoid fear of getting murdered. He has a lot of rich and powerful enemies now. He has very little to lose by clinging to power.

 

[barbos]

If readers think Russia is bad then you will see Russia trashing.

I agree that news love a dichotomy with a clear bad guy. But I'd also argue that Russia under Putin is bad. Putin perhaps isn't as bad as he's portrayed in the news. But the stuff that we have solid evidence for that he's done is pretty damn awful. Also, a moot point. Just the fact that he's a de facto dictator makes any attempt to pretty his image up doomed to failure. Dictators need to go. If the guy steps down then we can talk. But as long as he clings to power then no. The guy is a similar kind of guy as Robert Mugabe. Popular when he first came to power. Then not so much.

Problem with Putin or Russia trashing is that when you use fake, made-up stories and lies you lose credibility with people who are in position to change things in Russia - russian voters. Western propaganda lies make things worse.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I agree that news love a dichotomy with a clear bad guy. But I'd also argue that Russia under Putin is bad. Putin perhaps isn't as bad as he's portrayed in the news. But the stuff that we have solid evidence for that he's done is pretty damn awful. Also, a moot point. Just the fact that he's a de facto dictator makes any attempt to pretty his image up doomed to failure. Dictators need to go. If the guy steps down then we can talk. But as long as he clings to power then no. The guy is a similar kind of guy as Robert Mugabe. Popular when he first came to power. Then not so much.

Problem with Putin or Russia trashing is that when you use fake, made-up stories and lies you lose credibility with people who are in position to change things in Russia - russian voters. Western propaganda lies make things worse.

I must have missed the memo. I didn't know it was topsy-turvey-Tuesday.

He's been in power 20 years soon. What's your point? The length of his term, and the fact that he's turned Russia into a fledgling democracy to a dictatorship means that he is a bad man that needs to be removed from power. There's nothing that can make him look good at this point.

 

[barbos]

Problem with Putin or Russia trashing is that when you use fake, made-up stories and lies you lose credibility with people who are in position to change things in Russia - russian voters. Western propaganda lies make things worse.

I must have missed the memo. I didn't know it was topsy-turvey-Tuesday.

He's been in power 20 years soon. What's your point? The length of his term, and the fact that he's turned Russia into a fledgling democracy to a dictatorship means that he is a bad man that needs to be removed from power. There's nothing that can make him look good at this point.

Au contraire. Anything which makes west look bad makes Putin look good. And obvious (to any russian with half a brain) lies which western propaganda employs make Putin great.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism is more relevant than ever.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I must have missed the memo. I didn't know it was topsy-turvey-Tuesday.

He's been in power 20 years soon. What's your point? The length of his term, and the fact that he's turned Russia into a fledgling democracy to a dictatorship means that he is a bad man that needs to be removed from power. There's nothing that can make him look good at this point.

Au contraire. Anything which makes west look bad makes Putin look good. And obvious (to any russian with half a brain) lies which western propaganda employs makes Putin great.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism is more relevant than ever.

That doesn't even make sense. He employs standard fascist tactics to distract people from the fact that he's fucking them all over.

 

[barbos]

Au contraire. Anything which makes west look bad makes Putin look good. And obvious (to any russian with half a brain) lies which western propaganda employs makes Putin great.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism is more relevant than ever.

That doesn't even make sense. He employs standard fascist tactics to distract people from the fact that he's fucking them all over.

That's not fascist tactics, everybody use it even Western "democracies" You honestly think that lying about Russia will help you with your Putin "problem"? You don't suspect that "Putin" Problem could actually be a distraction which your government is giving you?