social media With the Help of Silicon Valley, Hillary Clinton Calls for Bipartisan Effort to Regulate Alleged Fake News

[Hunter259]

2 minutes ago, Albatross said:

It is that it created the sentiment of negativity on his roots, implying that because of his heritage and his moving around, he's not truly American—of which they sent out anonymously in hopes it would make Americans question his legitimacy without actually being too harsh. Look where it got them though. It sent the worry that he was some Islamic terrorist (because they passed around an image anonymously without context on purpose) and caused mainstream Republicans to push out an image (that Hillary's campaign was responsible for) that he was not a legal U.S citizen....which people now falsely assume was started by Trump. 

 

May I ask why Romney?

Trump didn't start it but he sure as hell beat that horse dead. I'm not saying you can't reach that conclusion but I simply don't believe that that was the intention. 

 

Romney's time as Governor of Massachusetts was quite a good one. Did a great job with RomneyCare and their debt. Hes a moderate Republican. So am I (Although a Teddy Roosevelt style is more my thing.) 

[zMeul]

Just now, AresKrieger said:

News is not something a media outlet has a monopoly on, anyone has the legal right to report "news"

bloggers and random people are not journalists

[Albatross]

3 hours ago, Hunter259 said:

Trump didn't start it but he sure as hell beat that horse dead. I'm not saying you can't reach that conclusion but I simply don't believe that that was the intention. 

 

Romney's time as Governor of Massachusetts was quite a good one. Did a great job with RomneyCare and their debt. Hes a moderate Republican. So am I (Although a Teddy Roosevelt style is more my thing.) 

Definitely, but if fake news is a problem and her campaign was responsible for it, it is their fault he believed in "false news" and got so many others to believe it. If anything, he was just misinformed by Democratic sources.

 

Ah, okay. Thanks for answering me.

[Pyrii]

As mentioned by a few people here, corporate media is definitely not innocent in this, so the idea that they will be the "control" for this new law is something that will not only not stop fake news, but also increase the monopoly that these outlets have over journalism.

 

 

[AresKrieger]

5 minutes ago, zMeul said:

bloggers and random people are not journalists

Neither are most of so called journalists, they are opinion writers just like the bloggers, also freedom of the press doesn't merely apply to news companies it applies to everyone spreading information, given that fact technically a blogger could be considered a journalist from a legal perspective though that is only a technicality, however as I said most journalists don't report the news in a factual basis making them opinionists anyway.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, AresKrieger said:

Neither are most of so called journalists, they are opinion writers just like the bloggers, also freedom of the press doesn't merely apply to news companies it applies it applies to everyone spreading information, given that fact technically a blogger could be considered a journalist from a legal perspective however that is only a technicality, however as I said most journalists don't report the news in a factual basis making them opinionists anyway.

opinion is one thing, misinformation quite another

[Hunter259]

3 minutes ago, Albatross said:

Definitely, but if fake news is a problem and her campaign was responsible for it, it is their fault he believed in "false news" and got so many others to believe it. If anything, he was just misinformed by Democratic sources.

 

Ah, okay. Thanks for answering me.

Fake news has been a thing since politics began. The problem nowadays is just how easy it is to get an echo chamber that lives off this crap. Easy to access crap news is a huge problem that Facebook, Reddit, Twitter has created a platform for.

[Albatross]

3 hours ago, Hunter259 said:

Fake news has been a thing since politics began. The problem nowadays is just how easy it is to get an echo chamber that lives off this crap. Easy to access crap news is a huge problem that Facebook, Reddit, Twitter has created a platform for.

I'd rather live in a world with fake news than a world where information is controlled (which becomes an echo chamber), to be honest.

[AresKrieger]

Just now, zMeul said:

opinion is one thing, misinformation quite another

Most opinions in the mainstream media are designed to misinform or stated as if they were fact, why do you think less than 10% of Americans trust the mainstream media, they are on par with some of the most unreliable online news sources claiming things like chocolate helps fight cancer, no one knows the actual truth but people are now realizing the deception due to the internet.

[zMeul]

Just now, AresKrieger said:

Most opinions in the mainstream media are designed to misinform or stated as if they were fact, why do you think less than 10% of Americans trust the mainstream media, they are on par with some of the most unreliable online news sources claiming things like chocolate helps fight cancer, no one knows the actual truth but people are now realizing the deception due to the internet.

that's the job of each ministry, in your case whatever ministry is in charge of Health

[Curufinwe_wins]

2 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Most opinions in the mainstream media are designed to misinform or stated as if they were fact, why do you think less than 10% of Americans trust the mainstream media, they are on par with some of the most unreliable online news sources claiming things like chocolate helps fight cancer, no one knows the actual truth but people are now realizing the deception due to the internet.

Reversed stupidity is not intelligence... 

 

4 minutes ago, Albatross said:

I'd rather live in a world with fake news than a world where information is controlled (which becomes an echo chamber), to be honest.

Fake news is an echo chamber... You may know the difference, the problem is most people don't. Which is why the self-segregation techniques of personalized external news stories are so dangerous. Information is already being controlled, and in a fully non-transparent manner (and for the record, NOT by humans, but by algorithms designed to increase usage/hits, literally forcefully stimulating echo chambers).

[AresKrieger]

3 minutes ago, zMeul said:

that's the job of each ministry, in your case whatever ministry is in charge of Health

Huh? The FCC doesn't fact check live TV they merely dish out fines for lewd things or saying fuck at certain times, and they are the only regulators. Health organizations don't regulate news broadcasts, they could call out false info but often don't unless the false info is a health risk which would fall under FCC guidelines anyway.

 

I feel like things work very differently in Romania than the US hence this disconnect.

 

1 minute ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Reversed stupidity is not intelligence... 

I don't know what specifically your trying to say since your reply makes no sense to me, however I'm going to assume it was an insult or a jab at my argument.

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 minute ago, AresKrieger said:

Huh? The FCC doesn't fact check live TV they merely dish out fines for lewd things or saying fuck at certain times, and they are the only regulators. Health organizations don't regulate news broadcasts, they could call out false info but often don't unless the false info is a health risk which would fall under FCC guidelines anyway.

 

I feel like things work very differently in Romania than the US hence this disconnect.

 

I don't know what specifically your trying to say since your reply makes no sense to me, however I'm going to assume it was an insult or a jab at my argument.

 

I'm saying the whole opinion that "all media is shit" while not necessarily invalid, DOES NOT validate "all their shit stinks the same". All is grey does not mean there is only one shade.

 

 

[zMeul]

4 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Huh? The FCC doesn't fact check live TV they merely dish out fines for lewd things or saying fuck at certain times, and they are the only regulators. Health organizations don't regulate news broadcasts, they could call out false info but often don't unless the false info is a health risk which would fall under FCC guidelines anyway.

if this info is presented as news, then the agency I spoke about would investigate and also file a complaint to the FCC and if found to be misinformation then the media outlet will pay

 

we have a piece of legislation in the works that prohibit any type of healthcare products advertisement in the media

[AresKrieger]

11 minutes ago, zMeul said:

FCC and if found to be misinformation then the media outlet will pay

If the FCC wasn't in the pocket of companies like comcast who also happen to own NBC and all its affiliates then maybe the system would work that way, but right now you can get away with lies so long as they don't pose a public health risk (for instance claiming drinking bleach will make you healthier or some nonsense)

 

13 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

I'm saying the whole opinion that "all media is shit" while not necessarily invalid, DOES NOT validate "all their shit stinks the same". All is grey does not mean there is only one shade.

I could argue a subtle lie can do far more damage than a blatant one since only those who are already lost in their own stupidity would believe the blatant lie, regardless the main difference between lies spread in memes and random online articles is the lack of credibility while the mainstream media supposedly are trustworthy. Additionally trying to stop fake news from spreading online would be impossible without violations of the first amendment, liable isn't a criminal matter after all it is a civil one.

[LAwLz]

I can't believe any human intelligent enough to have rational thoughts is for this. There have been a ton of news which were first called false which later turned out to be true. Remember that little leak about US mass surveillance from a little guy called Snowden? Thank fucking God we did not have a stupid bullshit law like this a few years ago, because you can bet your ass people were very interested in keeping that info away from the public.

 

 

Nobody should be in control of what can and can't be talked about. This could even lead to news sites not reporting on this that are true, because they might be worried someone will create evidence against it and that could result in it being classified as a lie and all of a sudden they can be shut down despite reporting the truth. 

 

 

People have disagreements about what is and isn't true all the time, often with both sides having evidence to support their belief. If you had an all knowing, omnipotent and lawful good being oversee this then I would be OK with it, but such a being does not exist. This would be controlled by people who don't know everything, and that has their own agenda. 

[Michael McAllister]

21 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I can't believe any human intelligent enough to have rational thoughts is for this. There have been a ton of news which were first called false which later turned out to be true. Remember that little leak about US mass surveillance from a little guy called Snowden? Thank fucking God we did not have a stupid bullshit law like this a few years ago, because you can bet your ass people were very interested in keeping that info away from the public.

 

 

Nobody should be in control of what can and can't be talked about. This could even lead to news sites not reporting on this that are true, because they might be worried someone will create evidence against it and that could result in it being classified as a lie and all of a sudden they can be shut down despite reporting the truth. 

 

 

People have disagreements about what is and isn't true all the time, often with both sides having evidence to support their belief. If you had an all knowing, omnipotent and lawful good being oversee this then I would be OK with it, but such a being does not exist. This would be controlled by people who don't know everything, and that has their own agenda. 

 

Censorship is not the answer, but there is an ethical way to fight against misinformation.  If the FCC were to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine of 1949, it would help.

 

Quote

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.^[1]

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.^[2][3]

The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.^[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost at all.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the equal-time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the equal-time rule deals only with political candidates.

 

In contemporary America, the vast majority of news networks are owned by large, for-profit corporations.  They broadcast whatever makes money, not necessarily information that is of interest to the public—infotainment.

[Curufinwe_wins]

22 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I can't believe any human intelligent enough to have rational thoughts is for this. There have been a ton of news which were first called false which later turned out to be true. Remember that little leak about US mass surveillance from a little guy called Snowden? Thank fucking God we did not have a stupid bullshit law like this a few years ago, because you can bet your ass people were very interested in keeping that info away from the public.

 

 

Nobody should be in control of what can and can't be talked about. This could even lead to news sites not reporting on this that are true, because they might be worried someone will create evidence against it and that could result in it being classified as a lie and all of a sudden they can be shut down despite reporting the truth. 

 

 

People have disagreements about what is and isn't true all the time, often with both sides having evidence to support their belief. If you had an all knowing, omnipotent and lawful good being oversee this then I would be OK with it, but such a being does not exist. This would be controlled by people who don't know everything, and that has their own agenda. 

How about just preventing sites from personalizing "external news sites" based on collected metadata (you could make an exception, although I personally wouldn't, for advertising but yet require them to be displayed as advertisements as a disclaimer just like LTT does with sponsors.)? That improves people's privacy and while not banning fake news sites, at least helps limit the extreme potential for self-segregation and selection.

[Tech_Dreamer]

Oh shit, are they going to shut down CNN?

 

oh no wait, they only say the truth right?

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 minute ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

Oh shit, are they going to shut down CNN?

 

oh no wait, they only say the truth right?

Ill willfully let CNN go if it forces Fox to even halfheartedly move to "fair and balanced". 

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jan/29/punditfact-checks-cable-news-channels/

[Tech_Dreamer]

8 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Ill willfully let CNN go if it forces Fox to even halfheartedly move to "fair and balanced". 

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jan/29/punditfact-checks-cable-news-channels/

That & on topic  , Apparently Clinton family politicians version of 'truth' in the news is anything that favors them & their party is the Truth & anything that is against or their political agenda is fake news .

[LAwLz]

23 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

How about just preventing sites from personalizing "external news sites" based on collected metadata (you could make an exception, although I personally wouldn't, for advertising but yet require them to be displayed as advertisements as a disclaimer just like LTT does with sponsors.)? That improves people's privacy and while not banning fake news sites, at least helps limit the extreme potential for self-segregation and selection.

That sounds reasonable, as long as news the sites are still allowed to publish whatever they want without risk of being banned or punished.

 

11 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Ill willfully let CNN go if it forces Fox to even halfheartedly move to "fair and balanced". 

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jan/29/punditfact-checks-cable-news-channels/

This right here highlights why this is such a terrifying and horrible idea.

90% of news stories from news networks contains misinformation. Where do we draw the line between those who goes punished and not punished? Should a mostly true story be punished just like a mostly false story? If yes, then we have the problem of even small inaccuracies leading to big punishments, and news networks are afraid to say anything. If we treat them separately, then we have the issue that in a lot of cases what is a "mostly true" and "mostly false" story is very subjective. That is a problem because your punishment will not be based on what you did, but on what the person judging you thinks. We should avoid systems where who judges you has a major impact on your punishment.

Even CNN only got 15% of their news rated as true in that test.

 

If you want an example then let's take the wage gap between men and women as an example. When analyzing the same numbers, different people come to different conclusions. When there are multiple ways to interpret numbers, who gets to decide which way is the right way?

Or let's take the polls as an example. Should everyone who reported that Clinton was in the lead before the election be punished? Even if they reported their own numbers, they might have collected those numbers in a deliberately misleading way. How do we check if they did that? Who gets to decide if the did collect their numbers in a misleading way?

 

There are a billion different shade of gray regarding this, and I believe that this can not end well if it were to pass. This is about too much power falling in the hands of a few, and the subject itself is extremely subjective and up for interpretation.

It really is one of the worst suggestions I have heard all year, and it is quite frankly mind blown that anyone could even think for a second that this is even a decent idea.

[Curufinwe_wins]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Snip

It would depend on the implementation, imho.

 

But either way, a reasonable first (and potentially only) step that I think almost everyone in their right might would agree on is the statement I laid out in your first quote.

 

45 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

How about just preventing sites from personalizing "external news sites" based on collected metadata (you could make an exception, although I personally wouldn't, for advertising but yet require them to be displayed as advertisements as a disclaimer just like LTT does with sponsors.)? That improves people's privacy and while not banning fake news sites, at least helps limit the extreme potential for self-segregation and selection.

 

 

Because this is the real issue... It isn't that fake news exists... It is that people epicaly fail at distinguishing fake news and real stuff (or even satirical news), and that the way social networks are explicitly designed to function lends credibility to such clickbait (I would argue it is a wider issue than just news) and encourages group-think/self-segregation.

[Tech_Dreamer]

Clintons going against fake news >> #GonnaWorkOutMagically

 

[Omon_Ra]

Solving the fake news problem is, like many issues, a question of supply and demand. You'll never stop the supply of fake news, but if you can reduce the demand for it, then you can reduce the supply. The problem is most Americans (and people the world over as well) don't want to take the time to research, discuss, intellectually consider and draw a rational conclusion on whatever talking point is at issue; so they search the interwebs or find circles of already like-minded people to simply make them feel better about whatever conclusion they've already arrived at. I just watched 'Tommy Boy' again tonight and there's a line in there that I noticed tonight that I for some reason never paid much attention to before. Zalinsky (Dan Akroyd's character for those who don't remember) says, 'What the American public don't know, is what makes them the American public.' Knowledge is power, and until you can get people to seriously question, draw their own conclusions and think independently, the fake news problem will never go away. This would require a fair amount of time and an overhaul of our education system (which is badly needed anyways) and relies on a massive shift in public thinking on education, what is 'important' in education and the willingness of the students themselves. To start that cycle, it requires educated, influential people to NOT restrict what people can read, but encourage them to read EVERYTHING and question EVERYTHING. However, that begins to undermine those in power when you start to get the masses to question everything.

 

I also find it hugely ironic that people are pissed at 'fake news' while nearly every advertisement, on the web, TV, print, wherever, you see is just as fake, half-truthful and deceitful as any click-bait headline. Ads are inherently deceitful and designed to 'trick' you into buying a product. Whether that's through pretty pictures, a catchy slogan, ambiguous statistics or any other of the typical advertising methods, the sole purpose is to get you to avoid making a rational, thoughtful purchase based on value, effectiveness or otherwise, and buy something based on what you've been told without having to stop and think about it. And it is those very advertisers/advertisements that generate revenue from all the clicks on the fake news sites which only in turn creates more incentive to pump out more fake news. It's like a misinformation perpetual-motion machine.