I too urge caution when attempting to outlaw or prevent "fake news." It also makes sense to differentiate between "fake" news (invented with no compunction regarding truthfulness) and "false" news (news which attempts to be truthful but is not). I see no reason to believe either are new inventions. I suspect the current hysteria stems from a visceral desire to shout, "HE'S LYING!", or "I'M STILL ANGRY!"
Free speech should be tolerant speech, not perfect speech. The problem with trying to immediately censor or flag something as false, is that sometimes the truth cannot be immediately known. Sometimes debates go on for years (the sea rising is not normal/the sea rising is natural) and while adherents to one point of view my sleep better knowing their opponents are silenced, there is nothing "real" about arbitrary decisions or committee votes. The desire to be right can be as subversive as the desire to make false statements.
OTOH, I see no harm in noting that something lacks proof, which is different from saying something is false. To alert people that there is a need to keep thinking, seems to me to be a wise and reasonable way to raise a concern, much more wide and reasonable I think than to tell people what to believe or not to believe.
Censoring has nothing to do with the platform provider. You are censoring or creating your own fake news based on your friends and news sources you choose to follow. That's how social networks work right now.
No, Facebook explicitly censors things with which they, the company, don’t agree.
I see no reason to believe either are new inventions.
There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.
– John Swinton, chief editorial writer, The New York Times 1860-70
Free speech should be tolerant speech
lol, no.
The problem with trying to immediately censor or flag something as false, is that sometimes the truth cannot be immediately known. Sometimes debates go on for years (the sea rising is not normal/the sea rising is natural) and while adherents to one point of view my sleep better knowing their opponents are silenced, there is nothing "real" about arbitrary decisions or committee votes. The desire to be right can be as subversive as the desire to make false statements. OTOH, I see no harm in noting that something lacks proof, which is different from saying something is false. To alert people that there is a need to keep thinking, seems to me to be a wise and reasonable way to raise a concern, much more wide and reasonable I think than to tell people what to believe or not to believe.
Most of this is good analysis, but when Daniel talks about "Fake news", don't forget he's a hard core marxist. The lies put out by "correct the record" and the Hillary campaign (eg: "Russia hacked our election!!!11!one" and that kind of BS) are considered "news" by his kind.
"Fake news" is when the truth debunks the "Fact check" and other propaganda sites.
And you know "Russia hacked our election" is a lie because...?
Because it's simply not a true fact. The DNC had its emails hacked -- that itself does not mean, and cannot be equated to, the election being hacked. Hacking the election implies the polling booths were manipulated, when they were not. The DNC hack exposed some dirty truths -- that the DNC was cheating and violating its own rules, and that a CNN staffer was involved. They all resigned, rightfully so. But none of that means Clinton would have or should have won had the truth not come out. Only one time since WW2 has a party kept the POTUS office for three terms, and that was Bush following Reagan. It's a fluke.
We knew before the election that Russia was trying to destabilize the democratic process. That and fake news was all that was needed to tip the scales to their advantage. We proved the fake news connection to Russia as well as the destabilization through hacks to the DNC. You can define hacking in a very narrow way if it makes you feel safer but Russia absolutely hacked it.
"Fake news" has an actual meaning. It refers specifically to invented stories published to troll or make money.
Such as “the US election was stolen by Russia.” charlesgres said:
And you know "Russia hacked our election" is a lie because...?
There is zero evidence in favor of the claim and every single institution researching the concept has found absolutely nothing to tie Russia to the election? Pretty simple to comprehend. If you have anything that refutes literally every study being done on the subject, feel free to post it. Truth is objective.
There are never guaranteed results from disinformation campaigns and reactions to Wikileaks but if you don't believe that Russians both wanted to hack and did manipulate our democratic process to some degree, your bias is hindering your ability to take in and process data.
Most of this is good analysis, but when Daniel talks about "Fake news", don't forget he's a hard core marxist.
"Fake news" has an actual meaning. It refers specifically to invented stories published to troll or make money. You might get upset by media reports that you don't like or assume to be biased, but that's another thing entirely.
The rest of your word salad is as completely nuts as the president's 4AM tweets.
"Fake news" is itself a propaganda term created by the Left to suppress dissent.
Complete nonsense. Fake news is a real thing -- flat-out bogus BS stories. It doesn't know parties. Stop trying to blame everything you dont like in life on imagined boogeymen.
There are still lot of people who think that there are 'Reds under every bed' in the USA. McCarthyism is alive and kicking. We'll soon see the return of 'Have you ever been a registered Democrat'? If yes, 'You're Fired'.
Any move by Apple into what the article proposes is far too late. That ship has sailed a long time ago. Opinions in many nations are so divided at the moment that ANY outlet is bombarded by radically opposing views. Discussions soon descend into anarchy. This may be way some interested/vested parties want but the clear majority don't want anything to do with it.
The suggestion that Apple further dilute themselves and waste resources making a Facebook replacement.
The way people still repeat (and are widening to suit their biases) archaic anti-communist Cold War propaganda.
The way people declare "fake news" to be some "liberal conspiracy against the truth".
The way they try to clumsily turn the tables and use the term against fact-checkers in a "no I'm not, YOU are!!" kind of rebuff.
The way these people don't understand the differences between the dissemination of verifiable data, data disseminated with bias, the expression of opinion, and the presentation of actually false statements/data...
...or because they feel compelled to dispute actual verifiable facts that challenge their religious-like adherence to their disproven but preferred beliefs.
tge way autocorrect still fails to work on the first word of each new line on this text edit box.
Most of this is good analysis, but when Daniel talks about "Fake news", don't forget he's a hard core marxist.
"Fake news" has an actual meaning. It refers specifically to invented stories published to troll or make money. You might get upset by media reports that you don't like or assume to be biased, but that's another thing entirely.
The rest of your word salad is as completely nuts as the president's 4AM tweets.
"Fake news" is itself a propaganda term created by the Left to suppress dissent. Thanks to the President's unwillingness to play along with that game, it's really blown up in the faces of CNN, BuzzFeed and the many mainstream outlets that have been pushing it.
I suspect this thread will soon be locked, so with regard to Apple creating yet another social network, I just don't see it. They're bad at it. They can't make money at it and it's not in their DNA.
I normally find your argument very logical but this one really piqued my curiosity as to why you consider 'fake news' as a propaganda terms by the Left to suppress dissent so in other words you are saying fake news are factual news that one can counter check with other websites.
Is there a sarcasm tag missing or you really meant whatever you are saying that you are a trump supporter.
The term "fake news" was, in fact, created by the Left. That's indisputable. It is a redefinition and dumbing down of the term "propaganda" and has been repurposed by the Left to quash opposing viewpoints, regardless of the source being attacked.
Most of this is good analysis, but when Daniel talks about "Fake news", don't forget he's a hard core marxist.
"Fake news" has an actual meaning. It refers specifically to invented stories published to troll or make money. You might get upset by media reports that you don't like or assume to be biased, but that's another thing entirely.
The rest of your word salad is as completely nuts as the president's 4AM tweets.
"Fake news" is itself a propaganda term created by the Left to suppress dissent. Thanks to the President's unwillingness to play along with that game, it's really blown up in the faces of CNN, BuzzFeed and the many mainstream outlets that have been pushing it.
I suspect this thread will soon be locked, so with regard to Apple creating yet another social network, I just don't see it. They're bad at it. They can't make money at it and it's not in their DNA.
I normally find your argument very logical but this one really piqued my curiosity as to why you consider 'fake news' as a propaganda terms by the Left to suppress dissent so in other words you are saying fake news are factual news that one can counter check with other websites.
Is there a sarcasm tag missing or you really meant whatever you are saying that you are a trump supporter.
The term "fake news" was, in fact, created by the Left. That's indisputable. It is a redefinition and dumbing down of the term "propaganda" and has been repurposed by the Left to quash opposing viewpoints, regardless of the source being attacked.
I didn't know Trump is considered to be from the left!
Most of this is good analysis, but when Daniel talks about "Fake news", don't forget he's a hard core marxist.
"Fake news" has an actual meaning. It refers specifically to invented stories published to troll or make money. You might get upset by media reports that you don't like or assume to be biased, but that's another thing entirely.
The rest of your word salad is as completely nuts as the president's 4AM tweets.
"Fake news" is itself a propaganda term created by the Left to suppress dissent. Thanks to the President's unwillingness to play along with that game, it's really blown up in the faces of CNN, BuzzFeed and the many mainstream outlets that have been pushing it.
I suspect this thread will soon be locked, so with regard to Apple creating yet another social network, I just don't see it. They're bad at it. They can't make money at it and it's not in their DNA.
I normally find your argument very logical but this one really piqued my curiosity as to why you consider 'fake news' as a propaganda terms by the Left to suppress dissent so in other words you are saying fake news are factual news that one can counter check with other websites.
Is there a sarcasm tag missing or you really meant whatever you are saying that you are a trump supporter.
The term "fake news" was, in fact, created by the Left. That's indisputable. It is a redefinition and dumbing down of the term "propaganda" and has been repurposed by the Left to quash opposing viewpoints, regardless of the source being attacked.
I didn't know Trump is considered to be from the left!
Trump co-opted the term to use it as a cudgel against a fundamentally corrupt and dishonest press. He didn't invent it.
What, I’m a nazi? Because I don’t “believe”? Sorry, sister. Facts are all that matter. Believe in whatever the fuck you like, but as soon as it affects someone else, I demand proof.
We'll soon see the return of 'Have you ever been a registered Democrat'? If yes, 'You're Fired'.
Yes, keep fearmongering. That sure worked for your last election, didn’t it?
Any move by Apple into what the article proposes is far too late. That ship has sailed a long time ago. Opinions in many nations are so divided at the moment that ANY outlet is bombarded by radically opposing views.
What the fuck does that have to do with Apple creating a social network?
On Russian interference in the US election... 17 US Intel Services agreed that this happened, also U.K. And a second European IC developed similar evidence. Also from the IC, it was found that not only was information intercepted/stolen by Russia on Democratic Party operatives, but also on Republicans as well, but importantly, went unused. That alone is a clear action by Russia to tip the election to their preferred candidate. Let alone the communication, known and unknown by Trump operatives with Russian apparatchiks. It is a bad joke that Congressmen Nunes is more interested in who told the truth about Russian/Trump coopting of the elections, than wanting to stand up for our democratic way of government above being another lackey for the bloodless coup that took place.
On fake news..... real news is fact based, fake news is a coloration of the truth at its best. If information in a story is not subject to rigorous fact checking it should not be accepted because it aligns with ones preconceived notions or the rhetoric of ones bias. In my experience the MSM bases its information on solid fact based reporting and rarely gets a story wrong. The fringe media, primarily right leaning, does not allow facts t get in the way of their sensational approach to bias news schlupping(?)brainwashing their listeners.
Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence.
The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led circus is President Obama’s former acting CIA chief Michael Morell. What makes him particularly notable in this context is that Morell was one of Clinton’s most vocal CIA surrogates. In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the pages of the New York Times but also became the first high official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty, claiming, “In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.” But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence community forum to “cast doubt” on “allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.” “On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire at all,” he said, adding, “There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it.”
Obama’s former CIA chief also cast serious doubt on the credibility of the infamous, explosive “dossier” originally published by BuzzFeed, saying that its author, Christopher Steele, paid intermediaries to talk to the sources for it. The dossier, he said, “doesn’t take you anywhere, I don’t think.”
Morell’s comments echo the categorical remarks by Obama’s top national security official, James Clapper, who told Meet the Press last week that during the time he was Obama’s DNI, he saw no evidence to support claims of a Trump/Russia conspiracy. “We had no evidence of such collusion,” Clapper stated unequivocally. Unlike Morell, who left his official CIA position in 2013 but remains very integrated into the intelligence community, Clapper was Obama’s DNI until just seven weeks ago, leaving on January 20.
Perhaps most revealing of all are the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee — charged with investigating these matters — who recently told BuzzFeed how petrified they are of what the Democratic base will do if they do not find evidence of collusion, as they now suspect will likely be the case. “There’s a tangible frustration over what one official called ‘wildly inflated’ expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation,” BuzzFeed’s Ali Watkins wrote.
Moreover, “several committee sources grudgingly say, it feels as though the investigation will be seen as a sham if the Senate doesn’t find a silver bullet connecting Trump and Russian intelligence operatives.” One member told Watkins: “I don’t think the conclusions are going to meet people’s expectations.”
What makes all of this most significant is that officials like Clapper and Morell are trained disinformation agents; Clapper in particular has proven he will lie to advance his interests. Yet even with all the incentive to do so, they are refusing to claim there is evidence of such collusion; in fact, they are expressly urging people to stop thinking it exists. As even the law recognizes, statements that otherwise lack credibility become more believable when they are ones made “against interest.”
In my experience the MSM bases its information on solid fact based reporting and rarely gets a story wrong.
Over 4,300 words. I just can't read these editorials anymore. Anything over 2,000 words is beyond the pale (the average college essays is 1,000 words). Not every editorial has to go back 25 years, explaining every historical detail.
Over 4,300 words. I just can't read these editorials anymore. Anything over 2,000 words is beyond the pale (the average college essays is 1,000 words). Not every editorial has to go back 25 years, explaining every historical detail.
Absolutely. A text dump isn't necessary to make a point. Just make the point.
It is positively orwellian that the purveyors of fake news have come out so strongly against "fake news" and of course link it with "harassment and radicalized hate speech"--- two things that also primarily come from these marxists--- who can forget the violent leftist thugs that rioted when a gay man tried to speak at Berkeley.
Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. That fake news taste good to you? The "violent leftist thugs" in Berkeley you speak of had nothing to do with the peaceful crowd protesting Breitbart's recently disgraced poster boy, Milo Yiannopoulos. I witnessed the violence myself (I'm a journalist for Oakland Tribune). Just like most of the violent protests of recent history in the Bay Area, vagabond anarchist, the ones you see on Telegraph near UC Berkeley, hijack events against the will of peaceful protestors. I've personally seen it happen on 3 occasions, protest organizers even plan for it now. I've seen protestors plead with the anarchist to no avail. It's very scary when it all goes down and within minutes the protestors have all flead and it's just the anarchist left destroying property and combating police. So nice try, you buffoon. Go back to the hole you crawled out of.
Ever since the previous election, It's incredibly hard to read the political garbage flowing from the guy's writing. Fake news? "Radicalized hate speech"? Or merely people you disagree with? Get real.
DED is just an angry man child, who I don't think has contributed anything of value to this site in months. This article is something that should be passed around Apple so they can laugh their heads off at it.
I see the right-wingers are getting a bit defensive over the FakeNews and Alternative Facts their belief system is founded on... 20 years of FoxNews will do that to your brain...
Doesn't the left believe there are 30,000 odd genders now?
You just successfully labeled yourself a bigot. Congrats! /s
i always enjoy reading both of your comments and at my clearest, I sometimes agree with your points.
But I think it is hilarious that you guys are bemoaning the length of DED columns, when you both go on for what seems forever in defense of at times anti-liberal anti modern humane/civil/global realities. Respect is due for your thoroughness.
If he didn't provide detail, history and his rationale for his prepositions, he of course would be chasten for the lack thereof. Thanks for the smile.
Let's put it this way. Some random schmo from Newsmax says "Obama is tracking us via microwave ovens" is fake news - it's objectively false, zero proof given. If 45 repeats the claim he read and claims Obama is tracking HIM via microwave ovens, then that's news, because a person of consequence is repeating a false news story.
Most of this is good analysis, but when Daniel talks about "Fake news", don't forget he's a hard core marxist.
"Fake news" has an actual meaning. It refers specifically to invented stories published to troll or make money. You might get upset by media reports that you don't like or assume to be biased, but that's another thing entirely.
The rest of your word salad is as completely nuts as the president's 4AM tweets.
"Fake news" is itself a propaganda term created by the Left to suppress dissent. Thanks to the President's unwillingness to play along with that game, it's really blown up in the faces of CNN, BuzzFeed and the many mainstream outlets that have been pushing it.
I suspect this thread will soon be locked, so with regard to Apple creating yet another social network, I just don't see it. They're bad at it. They can't make money at it and it's not in their DNA.
I normally find your argument very logical but this one really piqued my curiosity as to why you consider 'fake news' as a propaganda terms by the Left to suppress dissent so in other words you are saying fake news are factual news that one can counter check with other websites.
Is there a sarcasm tag missing or you really meant whatever you are saying that you are a trump supporter.
The term "fake news" was, in fact, created by the Left. That's indisputable. It is a redefinition and dumbing down of the term "propaganda" and has been repurposed by the Left to quash opposing viewpoints, regardless of the source being attacked.
I didn't know Trump is considered to be from the left!
Trump co-opted the term to use it as a cudgel against a fundamentally corrupt and dishonest press. He didn't invent it.
No. The press do not make up stories. They publish stories that are provided to them by parties that have purposes. Some press like the "Inquirer?" could make up story. But if they do they will be caught easily. So it is the CULTURE that like to make up stories.
Comments
DonaldRW said:
There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.
– John Swinton, chief editorial writer, The New York Times 1860-70
lol, no.But yet you get this dead on, so good for you.
There are never guaranteed results from disinformation campaigns and reactions to Wikileaks but if you don't believe that Russians both wanted to hack and did manipulate our democratic process to some degree, your bias is hindering your ability to take in and process data.
We'll soon see the return of 'Have you ever been a registered Democrat'? If yes, 'You're Fired'.
Any move by Apple into what the article proposes is far too late. That ship has sailed a long time ago. Opinions in many nations are so divided at the moment that ANY outlet is bombarded by radically opposing views. Discussions soon descend into anarchy. This may be way some interested/vested parties want but the clear majority don't want anything to do with it.
All of it.
The suggestion that Apple further dilute themselves and waste resources making a Facebook replacement.
The way people still repeat (and are widening to suit their biases) archaic anti-communist Cold War propaganda.
The way people declare "fake news" to be some "liberal conspiracy against the truth".
The way they try to clumsily turn the tables and use the term against fact-checkers in a "no I'm not, YOU are!!" kind of rebuff.
The way these people don't understand the differences between the dissemination of verifiable data, data disseminated with bias, the expression of opinion, and the presentation of actually false statements/data...
...or because they feel compelled to dispute actual verifiable facts that challenge their religious-like adherence to their disproven but preferred beliefs.
tge way autocorrect still fails to work on the first word of each new line on this text edit box.
Ludicrous.
but most humans suck at changing their minds, so this is pretty much all I should expect from the average commentator on the Internet. http://www.alternet.org/media/most-depressing-discovery-about-brain-ever
He was correct, so why shouldn’t it be?
Yes, keep fearmongering. That sure worked for your last election, didn’t it?
What the fuck does that have to do with Apple creating a social network?
On fake news..... real news is fact based, fake news is a coloration of the truth at its best. If information in a story is not subject to rigorous fact checking it should not be accepted because it aligns with ones preconceived notions or the rhetoric of ones bias. In my experience the MSM bases its information on solid fact based reporting and rarely gets a story wrong. The fringe media, primarily right leaning, does not allow facts t get in the way of their sensational approach to bias news schlupping(?)brainwashing their listeners.
2. The same ones that said there were WMDs in Iraq, I assume.
3. There’s zero evidence. Your own leaders admit it now. Get over it.
Your experience is wrong, then.
i always enjoy reading both of your comments and at my clearest, I sometimes agree with your points.
But I think it is hilarious that you guys are bemoaning the length of DED columns, when you both go on for what seems forever in defense of at times anti-liberal anti modern humane/civil/global realities. Respect is due for your thoroughness.
If he didn't provide detail, history and his rationale for his prepositions, he of course would be chasten for the lack thereof.
Thanks for the smile.