Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by FatPhil on Monday February 06 2017, @09:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the is-there-an-all-fake-news-sites-are-liars-paradox dept.

Over the last few months, we've talked about the weird obsession some people upset by the results of the election have had with the concept of "fake news." We warned that focusing on "fake news" as a problem was not just silly and pointless, but that it would quickly morph into calls for censorship. And, even worse, that censorship power would be in the hands of whoever got to define what "fake news" was.

Source: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170201/23481336610/bad-idea-worst-idea-having-ftc-regulate-fake-news.shtml


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 06 2017, @09:23PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday February 06 2017, @09:23PM (#463673) Journal

    Whether or not it is a problem is completely independent from whether or not it is within the scope of what the government can regulate.

    In this case it IS a problem. But, it IS NOT something the government can regulate.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:34PM (#463690)

    We're getting awfully click-baity around here. With these kind of stories (this, and the NOAA "coverup") the site really should start serving up ads to make their revenue. What we have here is the Techdirt ramblings based upon the opinions of an MSNBC news editor. In the article itself there are quotes talking about how this idea would never even get off the ground for legal reasons, but it does't stop him from going on to paint this as a potential, and dire, issue.

    Just cut out all the text from the summary and replace it with "Find out how the Government wants to control what news you see", include a link to the article, put up some ads for great mortgages, and call it a day.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:40PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:40PM (#463698)

      I'm only interested in mortgage tips that either involve an old, weird trick or else were innovated by a stay-at-home mom with whom investment bankers are extremely cross.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Monday February 06 2017, @09:52PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 06 2017, @09:52PM (#463712)

      I was going to make a smart comment about the "submit story" link being broken, but this is a really crap time of year and even the AAAS is just shitposting clickbait so there just isn't that much news.

      I mean, seriously, the AAAS website this afternoon is entirely thinly disguised prog politic BS, and pure clickbait "Weasels electrocuted by particle accelerator honored in exhibit" "Fish communicate through their urine" "Who’s the toughest bird? Continentwide ranking reveals a surprise"

      There's a lunar eclipse on Friday. Naturally its gonna rain. That's about as exciting as it gets.

      Its just a slow time of the year.

  • (Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Monday February 06 2017, @10:40PM

    by wisnoskij (5149) <reversethis-{moc ... ksonsiwnohtanoj}> on Monday February 06 2017, @10:40PM (#463750)

    Which does not not mean that this is not a serious concern. FB has already stated that it will be solving "Fake News", and Google could be next. When 5 people own the world government censorship is piddling and ineffective. The government could not really block off access to information if it tried, but Google or FB can and do with a few lines of code.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:17AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:17AM (#463810)

    Edit: "But, it IS NOT something the government *SHOULD* regulate."

    If you think it cannot be done then your knowledge of other countries is severely lacking...

    This is something EVERYONE should fight tooth and nail against regardless. Make no mistake this is the battle cry for authoritarians everywhere - don't let the fact that it appears to benefit "your team" and not theirs fool you.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:28AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:28AM (#463814)

    The fake news isn't news, therefore it isn't protected by the first amendment for the same reason that other forms of fraud aren't protected. The big issue here is figuring out how to separate shitty news from fake news. The former should be protected, but the latter really shouldn't.

    Unfortunately, ever since Rupert Murdoch was allowed to illegally buy media companies, and then challenge in court that they aren't news, the quality has been going downhill precipitously. The fact that the media consolidation rules were also tossed out just made it that much worse.

    • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:12AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:12AM (#463841) Journal

      Except - the constitution doesn't guarantee the freedom to define the news. It does guarantee the freedom of speech, and the freedom of the press. Tabloids have been free to publish nonsense, forever. And, housewives have been free to discuss the cow that gave birth to tiger cubs for at least as long. The moment you get to decide what is protected news, and what is not, some other arrogant bastard will be just as free to decide what you should and what you should not read.

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:19AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:19AM (#463888) Journal

        Runaway1926! Now a Constitutional Scholar! Move over Barrry "Barack" Obama, Runaway is in the house! And he says:

        Except - the constitution doesn't guarantee the freedom to define the news.

        Yeah, right there in the Consitutioning thing, somewhere. I swear I saw it a minute ago. "The right to define news", or was it "the right to keep and bear fake news"? Well, it's in there. Trust me. I am Runaway1896! Constitutional Lawyer! (Note: Comments on websites do not constitute actual legal opinions. If you experience a Trump lasting more than four hours, seek medical attention immediately. The actual Frist Amendment does not say way you think it says, and you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. Offer void in all states except Arkansas, for obvious rebuttal reasons.)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:32AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:32AM (#463891)

        It doesn't guarantee the right to fraudulent speech. There's literally centuries of case law on the matter that making shit up isn't protected when being passed off as truth. If you want the first amendment to cover made up shit, write a novel or a screenplay. Not, fake news.

        The only issue here is that drawing the line is tricky and the people drawing the lines are likely to have motives other than the public's best interest.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:32PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:32PM (#464061) Journal

          We already have libel and slander laws. Put them to use. No new laws needed. It's kinda like murder has ALWAYS been against the law, since even before gunpowder was invented. WTF would we need new laws, making it illegal to commit murder with a gun? Also kinda like, it's always been possible to keep a journal - WTF should we pay some damned fool who thought of "method to keep a journal ON A COMPUTER!"

          Laws, laws, laws - authoritarians always want to pass new laws. Why is that? Oh - derp - authoritarian!!

    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:49AM

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:49AM (#463949) Journal

      We've always been at war with East Asia. Any claim that we ever had been at war with Eurasia is fake news and therefore must be suppressed.

      Yes, fake news is a problem. But in this case, government control is a cure worse that the disease.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 2) by tizan on Tuesday February 07 2017, @01:28AM

    by tizan (3245) on Tuesday February 07 2017, @01:28AM (#463831)

    there is already law against it i believe...just like "shouting fire" is not free speech if it is intented to do harm in a theater for example.
    So writing and spreading with full knowledge fake news can and will cause harm to somebody..so they should be dealt under the law appropriately. The question is proving that somebody knew the news is false and spread it anyways as reality and not sarcasm or a joke is why judges and lawyers are there....

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:35PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:35PM (#464063)

      there is already law against it i believe...just like "shouting fire" is not free speech if it is intented to do harm in a theater for example.

      The popular "shouting fire in a crowded theater" quote is actually from a court case where the US government argued that it was ok to censor people who didn't agree with the government actions in the Vietnam war.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater [wikipedia.org]

      That is, every time you use that quote in support of censoring anyone (whether legitimate or not), you are supporting abolishing free speech.