SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the no-more-profits-from-false-prophets dept.
Google and Facebook finally announced steps to tackle fake news on their respective platforms this week following increasing pressure from critics eager to halt the flow of falsehoods online.
Both companies said they will prohibit fake news websites from advertising on their platforms, thus reducing the exposure of such articles to the public while also starving the companies of an important source of advertising income.
The move comes after the companies received a wave of criticism over its role in propagating misinformation, particularly in this election cycle in which many observed that a bitter partisan war was potentially worsened by polarizing news sources touting untrue assertions. While the technology companies have in the past been hesitant to mediate the flow of news, this change might signal a change in thought as they come to grip with the real-life implications of lackluster surveillance on their platforms.
Wrongthink will not be permitted, citizens.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday November 18 2016, @09:18AM
Worth a read: The Term "Fake News" Joins "Hate Speech" As A New Tool for Ideological Speech Suppresion [coyoteblog.com]
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @10:06AM
Not really.
Some rando blogger with his panties inatwist.
Seen that a million times before.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @12:17PM
Wrong! [gatestoneinstitute.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:09AM
Some rando blogger with his panties inatwist.
Wrong! [gaintestineinstutute.org]
So, I take it the randy blogger's panties were untwisted? How does that concern SoylentNews? Soylentils what to know!
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday November 18 2016, @03:19PM
I agree that there seems to be a lot of stuff conflated under the term "fake news" right now, from parody and satire to deliberate ideological lies, to sites which simply have a strong political slant (but which tend to interpret facts and stats "creatively" sometimes). That last category, as discussed in your link, doesn't seem to fall under "fake news" to me.
But rather than blaming this conflation entirely on what you call "SJW censorship," I'd propose that part of the issue is the way all of the above types of sites have been used similarly in this election. It's well-known that many satire and parody headlines have been passed around Facebook as if they were "real news," and many of those stories are reposted and "liked" because they SOUND kind of like the rhetoric found on a more "real" political blog/news site like Breitbart or whatever. (Frequently, many people who pass the stories around don't even seem to get past the headline or first paragraph, where they are even some obvious clues that it's a hoax.)
So, while we should be concerned about "censorship" of alternate viewpoints, the fact of the matter is that lots of people -- on ALL sides of the political spectrum -- have completely stopped "fact checking" or even bothering to read the propaganda (or humorous satire!) they're spreading. And to some people, it's become hard to even figure out what's parody or serious anymore. Frankly, when I have read some extremist "news articles" meant sincerely by both extremist right-wing and extremist left-wing sources, I've sometimes wondered, "Can these people possibly be serious?"
That's not to excuse inappropriate attempts at censorship, but the increasing polarization and feedback loops of media "filter bubbles" facilitated by various internet services that provide you more of "what you like to hear" means that people literally seem to be living in different "realities" governed by different sets of "known facts." It's hard to be objective in characterizing the validity of news sources given that situation.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday November 18 2016, @04:31PM
The interesting (scary) thing to me is that it provides a path to delegitimize any sort of news that's not sponsored by one of the major networks. Someone actually finds something out and hands it off to the "correct news" orgs only for them to ignore it because it doesn't satisfy their narrative, and then gets angry and screams it from the rooftops on their own site? Swept under the rug. Any new news site that pops up that might actually BE legitimate? Poof. Wikileaks? Wikileaks is gone unless you go to them directly and do your own trawling, and then you can't share it. It's a snappy two word response to make anything inconvenient disappear rather than actually attempting to refute the content. Meanwhile, blatant content-free HuffPo tabloid articles and NYT hit-pieces are firehosed all over your face.
Disinformation is forever.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @04:51PM
"some people"? Saudi Arabia was recently re-elected to the UN's Human Rights Council but there are countless examples where the known facts make a parody of the official narrative.
This is confirmation bias combined with functional illiteracy [wikileaks.org]. Rational individuals will give both sides of an argument equal weight and consideration before making a judgement call.