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

[Prysin]

5 hours ago, Hunter259 said:

No where did she say a government body would be in charge of this. She simple says that this is a problem that needs to be addressed. Please don't put spin on this.

The Clintons arent exactly known to uphold their standards for long when money is involved. She says something today, who knows what she is going to say tomorrow.

[Misanthrope]

Lady, you're the very motherfucking definition of "fake" personified: Shut the fuck up.

[RocketFarmer]

7 hours ago, zMeul said:

the US GOV should establish a new independent agency and accompanying legislation

this agency would have a council of independent accredited journalists from already established international news agencies and US mass media members

this body would vet reports of misinformation from the media and if found, they can rule (based on the law)

• that outlet to be forced to display they promoted misinformation and pay a fine; websites found in breach would be forced to display this message each time a user logs in into their site to ~30sec
• if the media outlet does not comply, the government can size and shut them down
• for each subsequent offence, the fine applied doubles

No

[TidaLWaveZ]

I really don't understand this "fake news" thing. The term is applied to things like pizzagate, a theory or accusation at best which I've never seen purported as news by any outlet except those who deem it "fake news".

 

Do we have a clear definition of "fake news" or is it just a new broad term coined so people can dismiss any propaganda? Just about all news has an alternate agenda, but just because it's biased doesn't make it fake. 

 

"Fake News" is only a problem if you're gullible enough to trust everything you see, It's pretty damn easy to not trust a "news" source that nobody's ever heard of. It's your fault if you believe in a false article, you didn't look into it.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

I really don't understand this fake news thing. The term is applied to things like pizzagate, a theory or accusation at best which I've never seen purported as news by any outlet.

 

Do we have a clear definition of "fake news" or is it just a new broad term coined so people can dismiss any propaganda? Just about all news has an alternate agenda, but just because it's biased doesn't make it fake. 

 

"Fake News" is only a problem if you're gullible enough to trust everything you see, It's pretty damn easy to not trust a "news" source that nobody's ever heard of. It's your fault if you believe in a false article, you didn't look into it.

They fear that now that Trump and conservatives fucking sweeped in they'd use the same tactics they use manipulating the media according to their whims. Which to be fair, the right probably would as well, but it's just fucking dog whistling: by fake news Clinton and her posse just mean "anything we can't control or spin ourselves" they couldn't give a fuck about truth.

[TidaLWaveZ]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

They fear that now that Trump and conservatives fucking sweeped in they'd use the same tactics they use manipulating the media according to their whims. Which to be fair, the right probably would as well, but it's just fucking dog whistling: by fake news Clinton and her posse just mean "anything we can't control or spin ourselves" they couldn't give a fuck about truth.

IMO the far lefts using fake news just like they're using racism. They say they're prevalent and through the media they make racism and fake news look like the countries largest problems when the truth suggests that they are far from it.

[RocketFarmer]

"Fake news" is a fake issue.  Disinformation and propaganda have been around forever.  So-called "real news" groups engage in it all the time. Buyer beware for all news.

 

What's really at play is a corporatist, largely globalist media that has steadily been losing their grip on their dominating influence on news, as well as defeat of the politicians and parties they shill for in elections.  So they are attempting to pressure the tech companies to alter their policies to kill alternative news. 

 

In the age of information we live in, anyone can declare themselves a journalist.  There are no restrictions on such declarations, no certification or license required (exception being traditional broadcast media requiring FCC license).  The single, independent journalist is in fact in line with traditional pampleteers that have helped shape a lot of good public discussion and political action.  The abolition of slavery and the movement for the freedom of and from religion being among these.  So I don't buy the assertion that these are not journalists.

 

So while out of 100 independent journalist well less than half may be legitimate in the sense of reporting factual, unbiased information, it's up to the consumer to figure it out.  Quit being a lazy prick.  Also, no one is forcing anyone to consume such information.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

I'm with you, OP: I have no problem with fake news disappearing from the face of the Earth, but I can't think of a law that I would be comfortable with, or even that would be effective in the first place.

So to clarify myself:

- I don't see what a law could do that effectively reduces fake news

- I don't see how it could be effective and acceptable at the same time

- I can see a scenario in which the law does very little to reduce fake news, yet it still does collateral damage to free speech.

 

There are many, many obstacles, from making sure it can't be abused (what measures would be considered? Ex-ante screening? Ex-post punishing? Some mixed form of censorship? Financial retaliation without interfering with publishing, or actual bans to publish?), to defining "fake news" (Does it have to be consciously fake? Can it be done in good faith based on flawed sources? How much evidence against your good faith report is needed before keeping it up is considered fake news? If good faith is accepted, what happens with willful ignorance as a shield to continue publishing the craziest of stories?), to what could possible achieved the (on paper) intended effect...

 

Anyway, she doesn't need to worry: the Don said he'll unleash them libel laws and save us all from lies  

[Guest Kloaked]

The funny thing here is that every super liberal or left-leaning outlet was spreading "fake news" as they literally take things out of context to deceive "readers" (the people who actually read about the real story called them on their BS). HuffPo was even more ironic as they talked about journalistic integrity failed the people this election season, yet not a few hours later they were back at spreading deceiving narratives.

 

They are trying to say that every conservative outlet or any outlet that even criticizes the "wrong" people in the "wrong" way are spreading fake news. This is another ploy to deceive people just like CNN did with Clinton this whole election season and failed to do. It's not going to work.

 

The left are just going to end up eating themselves. Clinton is a sore loser.

[RocketFarmer]

The only way to combat outright lies is truth and people willing to seek it out.  Most people are lazy and don't want to do the leg work.  Convincing people not to take news stories, Facebook posts, Tweets, etc. at face value would be much more effective than schemes that essentially shut down the voices of alternate, dissenting opinions.

 

But good luck with your ban, comrade. 

[Delicieuxz]

USA news is propaganda at its core. The USA MSM is concerned that their propaganda is being challenged by other information, some of which is propaganda, but a lot of which is not propaganda at all, and is only shining light on the reality of situations which the USA mainstream media is trying to keep up a fictionalized narrative about.

 

CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and others... part of their revenue comes from performing scripts which the USA government provides them, and from allowing the USA government to edit their news briefs. So, those stations are not only corporate-owned news, but they're also state-sponsored news.

 

https://redgreenalliance.com/2016/04/04/top-german-journalist-msm-news-is-propaganda-we-all-lie-for-the-cia/

http://investmentwatchblog.com/cnn-caught-staging-faked-satellite-interview/

http://thinkaboutnow.com/2016/03/video-proof-bbc-cnn-and-fox-news-stage-attacks-to-get-us-into-war/\

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/20/pentagon-official-once-told-morley-safer-that-reporters-who-believe-the-government-are-stupid/

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/a-gay-girl-in-damascus-comes-clean/2011/06/12/AGkyH0RH_story.html?utm_term=.415027c1765b

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/08/19/the-man-behind-the-viral-boy-in-the-ambulance-image-has-brutal-skeletons-in-his-own-closet-images/

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/washington-post-blacklist-story-is-shameful-disgusting-w452543

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-propaganda-about-russian-propaganda

 

 

 

I find this RT guy a bit annoying to listen to, but around 2:01 in the clip, the CNN cameraman lets it slip that the person being interviewed is also a CNN cameraman.

 

 

USA could be the most propagandized nation on the planet. But, part of the USA's propaganda is that everyone who says something different than USA MSM is telling propaganda, and the USA MSM works to intimidate people into not questioning the USA MSM narrative. However, USA MSM is as much actual news as WWF is actual wrestling. It's artificial and contrived by design.

 

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs/

 

Also, there's a huge amount of paranoia that messes up the judgment of news stations, who feel as though they're fighting some good fight by presenting information that is entirely biased, for the sake of creating leverage of public sentiment against the target they've determined to be deserving of it. In the end, whichever way the USA MSM throws its bias, it all ends up being without any truth. And, unfortunately, a lot of Western news naively just parrots whatever the USA MSM and government is saying.

 

 

If you want a tip on recognizing fake information, any time an article tries to tell you what something is, rather than presenting considerations, it's probably bullshit. And when an article tries to trigger sentiments in the reader, it's dealing in bullshit and is purposefully trying to not allow the reader to judge things for themselves. Truth is what is arrived at after all things have been considered, whereas sentiment is what a person is left with when all things have not been considered, but consideration has been cut short by the imposition of a determination. A determination is a falsehood by nature, which says 'these considerations, but not these others,' and polarizes information, reduces presence of truth, and ends in a false conclusion. Anything less than True is False, and this is as reliable as mathematics.

 

[RocketFarmer]

Alternative option to supressing speech would be to establish mechanisms for reputation.  But, I believe that likely would demonstrate consumer bias more than reputation for truthful, accurate statements.  And on topics that are controversial, truth can be subjective.  I mean at one point you could be burned at the stake for declaring the earth was a sphere and not the center of the universe, whereas today you'd be figuratively burned at the stake for declaring the earth is flat.  So "truth", as determined by popular opinion or official edict is not always the same as factual truth supported with verfiable evidence. 

[RocketFarmer]

In that rather lengthy post you identified what I believe is the real issue here.  The control of the Narrative.  That's the push the powers that be are after.  To them the narrative trumps evidence, and no one must be allowed to stand against their narrative.  All opposition must be destroyed. 

[AresKrieger]

8 hours ago, Nicholatian said:

What exactly are you expecting out of this? Do you honestly believe that in a just world, reporters and bloggers and journalists alike ought to “do the right thing” and spoonfeed you the facts? That’s your obligation, not theirs. Fact of the matter is, humans aren’t just, and they don’t often do the right thing. You need to use your intellect and capabilities of reasoning to figure out what is logical, align what isn’t objective with your morals and experiences, and come to conclusions yourself. If you honestly expect something to shape up then you need to make it happen. Change never took place at the behest of those who idly sat around and awaited change.

I'm arguing that we should not censor anything, and don't expect people to be truthful with information my argument pretty much is that the mainstream media is no better in this aspect thus they can't justify censoring online content under this BS line of reasoning.

 

Also I voted for Trump to shake up this festering pool of nonsense, thus I am attempting to change things, however I'm not going to waste my time in a political crusade that I don't yet have a reason to wage, if they actually attempt to censor the internet then we have a different set of circumstances.

[suits]

Interesting that the one who profited the most from fake new calls for its ban. The liberals have no chance in 2020 if fake news is filtered out

[Memories4K]

3 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

They fear that now that Trump and conservatives fucking sweeped in they'd use the same tactics they use manipulating the media according to their whims. Which to be fair, the right probably would as well, but it's just fucking dog whistling: by fake news Clinton and her posse just mean "anything we can't control or spin ourselves" they couldn't give a fuck about truth.

It's not even that i like conservatives (although they seem to have reformed themselves since last i was a very anti-conservative angsty teen with Bush in office) It's this.

It's that the left is very clearly corrupt and this idea to stop "fake news" is so very insincere and a means for censorship in order to stabilize and keep control. It's that, if you were actually paying attention and weren't just on the "Hate Trump" bandwagon, it was so very clear that Trump was going to win the election despite all the polls that said otherwise. It's now established trust in alternative media like Breitbart (not vouching for them but they've become a central news source for many people who became disillusioned by MSM) and others who've called out MSM and gotten a lot right, who've opened up the stage for real discussion.

[Memories4K]

3 minutes ago, suits said:

Interesting that the one who profited the most from fake new calls for its ban. The liberals have no chance in 2020 if fake news is filtered out

1 post?
Who are you shilling for? hahahaha

[Syntaxvgm]

yes there was fake news. 

But this broad language about doing something about it from a government official strikes me as dangerous. 

[PlayStation 2]

You're gonna hire the liberal capital of the world to basically censor news?

What kind of stupid idea is that.

[Beskamir]

People that trust everything on the internet as valid and factual should do us all a favour and stop drinking dihydrogen monoxide. The world would be a better place without those morons. 

[Guest Kloaked]

18 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

You're gonna hire the liberal capital of the world to basically censor news?

What kind of stupid idea is that.

The kind of idea that comes from liberals :^)

[Dionyz]

Clinton is just mad that she didn't get elected based on "fake news". 

[zacRupnow]

On 12/8/2016 at 9:26 PM, Memories4K said:

The only fake news here is all those news organizations and polls that said The Donald had no chance of winning the election.

 

*cough* CNN, MSNBC, FOX, Huffington Post, etc. *cough*

Only News I can trust is TYT.

[Mooshi]

So when is CNN, Fox and MSNBC gonna shut down?

[suicidalfranco]

27 minutes ago, zacRupnow said:

Only News I can trust is TYT.

But they're worst than CNN...