SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
FatPhil
on Monday February 06 2017, @09:17PM
from the is-there-an-all-fake-news-sites-are-liars-paradox dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Bad Idea or the Worst Idea? Having the FTC Regulate "Fake News"
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 134 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Confess your sins to the Lord and you will be forgiven;
confess them to man and you will be laughed at.
-- Josh Billings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @11:20PM
Oh ya cuz anarchy is so very civilized and entirely lacks coercion ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:21AM
There is no regulation more rigorous than that of a robust framework of contracts negotiated in a free market.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Tuesday February 07 2017, @01:02AM
There is no regulation more rigorous than that of a robust framework of contracts negotiated in a free market.
And those contracts get enforced by...?
Oh, of course, all the private corporations practice "enlightened self-interest" and, somehow, ensure that contract breaking is ultimately unprofitable. Unicorns may be involved. Oh, I suspect it also involves the notion that everybody is free to contract with anybody they like for anything they need... and if "the market" fails to offer anybody food, shelter or medicine on acceptable terms, they can teach "the market" a lesson by dying.
Not that the great socialist utopia is any more feasible. If governing people was achievable by applying some simple, single, ideology, it would have been sorted out years ago. Perhaps the main point of government is to stop any one group of naive idealists imposing their "religion" on the masses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @01:49AM
Why in the world would you think it's a good idea for this one particular aspect of society to be controlled by a monopoly—one that is fundamentally imposed violently, no less? You are the one in love with magical thinking!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:45PM
Alt-right means alt-government! Except in the original German, "Alt" means "old"?
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Tuesday February 07 2017, @11:58PM
Why in the world would you think it's a good idea for this one particular aspect of society to be controlled by a monopoly
Why wouldn't that - or any other aspect of society - end up being controlled by a monopoly in a free market?
Currently, most economies rely on government-imposed laws to stop monopolies and anti-competetive behaviour spreading. Monopoly formation seems to be a failure mode in markets and, once a monopoly forms in one area, it can leverage that to spread into other areas. Control over contract/law enforcement would seem like a particularly tasty target.