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This discussion has been archived.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.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 06 2017, @09:23PM
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.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:34PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
A MAN Just Won a Gold Medal for Punching a Woman in the Face
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:19AM
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
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
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!!
A MAN Just Won a Gold Medal for Punching a Woman in the Face
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:49AM
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
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
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.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:23PM
The only reason that "Fake News" is any sort of problem, is that it has the capacity to move large numbers of people push the buttons and pull the levers of a giant machine called "government", whose purpose is to impose (violently) some dictate on the whole of society.
Fake News is a symptom of people's struggle to gain control of this machine; the fundamental issue is not the fake news, but rather the foundation of violent imposition around which even the most "enlightened" cultures have built themselves.
The key is not to regulate fake news, but rather to diminish the destructive power of government (ideally to nothing; it's the last vestige of humanity's uncivilized origins). In this way, Fake News becomes pointless.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:46PM
The "problem" with debunking libertarian idealism like this is that it's never really been tried on a large scale. One cannot say it doesn't work because it's never been tried in practice and failed in practice. Small islands or "crashed" war-torn governments are probably the closest that's been tried, with mixed results.
I suspect that big corporations will step into the void of government and be just as evil if not more. I've worked in both private and public sector, and they are BOTH stupid/evil/wasteful, just in different ways for different reasons.
I don't mind if somebody tries a non-trivial libertarian nation somewhere, JUST don't make the USA be the guinea-pig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @11:02PM
There is no "nation" to build; there are no arbitrary "national" borders to a free market.
The ideas of libertarian pervade society—even the most totalitarian ones; the ideas of libertarianism are what make any society robust, actually productive, and eventually prosperous, and this kind of society extends on just through some geographical region, but through any domain of economic (e.g., human) interaction, including cyberspace.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:13AM
The ideas of lots of thing pervade society in various times and places. To a kid, parents are dictators, for example. Bits and pieces doesn't tell us anything special or different about libertarianism and its competitors.
Further, some degree of X being good does not mean level-11 of X is also good. Some water is good. Too much, and one drowns.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday February 06 2017, @11:48PM
I thought that's why we have states. I bet one or two would try something along the lines of libertarianism, if given the opportunity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:19AM
If all our state laws, conventions, and standards are too different, then commerce suffers. That being said, red states cannot seem to stand blue states and vice versa such that perhaps the US should be split into 2 or 3 nations rather than keep having the red/blue fight in DC. DC is dysfunctional. We have either wild swings or gridlock.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:23AM
Well, with the advent of the internet the geographical issues are less of a problem. We may live fat away, but now people can find common ground and fellow supporters more easily. It is a double edged sword, but I think it will work out in the long run. Hopefully we can skip the state vs. Nation bit and move on to some broad overarching world constitution that all nations can agree on. Then we move forward from there. The US can't even comprehend it at this point, but I think many other countries can.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:47PM
I'm afraid you've missed it. Fake news, formerly called propaganda, is the very thing that motivates all of the people throwing their weight behind the warlord and making up his armies when he marches on your contract enforcer.
It doesn't matter that your interpretation of the contract is correct. Unless your contract enforcer is an even bigger warlord with a bigger army, which perhaps implies better propaganda, the warlord who's trying to violently break a contract with you will succeed and take from you far more than the contract ever specified.
We call that bigger warlord "government," and I at least remain hopeful in this brave new era that said warlord's procedures and bureaucracies will keep his armies idle. It's a pretty bad way of going about things, but everything else is either worse or a fantasy where men are angels.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @10:58PM
Whether it's a warlord or a representative democracy, it is the violent imposition that makes an organization a government.
That is why it is so important to have checks and balances, and there is no greater form of check-and-balance than competition within a market—Uncle Sam, for example, has emerged as a monopoly in this competition, only because the ancient, uncivilized culture from which it grew perceives (without merit) that such a Monopoly is virtuous—it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, but one which humanity will undoubtedly shake off as it becomes clear that even those "governmental" sectors of society do not benefit from monopolies either (especially ones that are violently imposed).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:11AM
Fake news, formerly called propaganda
The new name for propaganda is PR. Fake news is the new name for yellow journalism. The later can be an aspect of the former, but it needs not be such.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by n1 on Monday February 06 2017, @09:26PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-negative-polls-fake-news-twitter-cnn-abc-nbc-a7564951.html [independent.co.uk]
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-06/cnn-latest-immigration-ban-poll-includes-aggressive-oversample-trump-blasts-fake-new [zerohedge.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by VLM on Monday February 06 2017, @09:39PM
Any negative polls are fake news, just like the CNN, ABC, NBC polls in the election.
He's not far enough right wing for me, but you gotta love that guy, when it comes to trolling the media and just slugging it out with them, damn he's good. He may not be the hero we need but he's still a hero.
The american public oppose border security according to the polls, about as much as Hillary has a 99% chance of winning according to the polls LOL.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @10:31PM
No, only the SJW'ers and the wetbacks oppose border security.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @11:35PM
For some reason, CNN/ORC simply can't seem to conduct a poll where the distribution of respondents mirrors the actual distribution of registered voters in the U.S. As you can see below, in the latest "oversample" farce, CNN decided that filling it's poll with Democrats was becoming way too obvious and, as such, just decided that 45% of registered voters are suddenly independent
Can we please get past the "oversample" stupidity?
(a) When pollsters over-sample it means exactly the same thing as it does to engineers - if you increase the sampling rate you increase the accuracy. So when Podesta said in a 2008 email that they wanted to oversample a poll it meant they wanted to get more accurate numbers to better allocate money on advertising. [theatlantic.com] It was an internal poll anyway for chrissakes, so according to the conspiracy fantasy they are both so evil and so stupid they wanted to lie to themselves? Come on! Only idiots fascinated by their own ignorance think it means to deliberately choose an unrepresentative sample.
(b) It is very rare for pollsters to get an exactly representative sample. Nowadays it takes about 30 phone calls to find one person who will actually answer the poll questions. So for 1000 data points, they have to go through 30,000 calls. In order to correct for non-representative samples, they weight [applied-survey-methods.com] the results to match the actual demographics. This is stats 101 people.
(Score: 2) by n1 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:33AM
I wasn't supporting zerohedge analysis or conclusion, just highlighting it as the counter argument to the 'polls'
zerohedge used to have a decent article every so often, but since the election they are just a PR department for the new administration and are making some serious leaps in logic and ignoring issues they would have been all over months ago, just so they can keep pushing Trump.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:51AM
There's gotta be a better source for a counterpoint.
Or, if there isn't then maybe there is no legitimate counterpoint...
There have been some decent analyses of polling failures recently, like these:
(the last one in particular explains differential non-response and it did so before the election)
The “spiral of silence”: how pollsters got the Colombia-FARC peace deal vote so wrong - Vox
http://www.vox.com/world/2016/10/6/13175608/polls-colombia-farc-peace-deal-vote-wrong [vox.com]
Can You Trust Trump’s Approval Rating Polls? | FiveThirtyEight
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-you-trust-polling-in-the-age-of-trump/ [fivethirtyeight.com]
Poll aggregators seem to be killing off actual polling - Vox
http://www.vox.com/2016/11/2/13496432/2016-polls [vox.com]
Be skeptical when polls show the presidential race swinging wildly - Vox
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/6/13540646/poll-shifts-misleading-clinton-leads-trump [vox.com]
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Monday February 06 2017, @09:27PM
Didn't our (newly minted) best friends in Russia once have a state-run newspaper called Pravda, Russian for "truth"?
Perhaps we can learn something from their wise example.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday February 06 2017, @10:08PM
Didn't our (newly minted) best friends in Russia once have a state-run newspaper called Pravda, Russian for "truth"?
I heard that somewhere too, but I think that statement turned out to be fake news. Remember, you heard it here first!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:42AM
Or perhaps we shouldn't apply their experience in entire different socio-political climate to ours.
And no, I'm not advocating for state run media, I just really hate Godwin's law and it's various permutations.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday February 06 2017, @09:28PM
some fake news is just clickbait. I expect the FTC would clamp down on that, for bad or for good.
But if one is publishing fake news with the aim of changing the outcome of an election, it would be easy enough to publish it from another country. Just get a .ru domain name then give your publication a russian-sounding name.
BTW Pravda means "Truth".
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:31AM
If it's published under a .ru or similarly obscure domain name for English language news about the US, then there's not much point in trying to stop that, people aren't going to give it any credibility given the degree to which the authorities in Russia control any sort of media there.
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Monday February 06 2017, @09:33PM
The establishment lefties are going thru the usual psychological stages of grief about their obsolete belief system getting rejected by a majority of the population.
Stages of grief don't necessarily result in the most rational outbursts. So it would be pretty dumb for the losers to propose policy for at least a year or two until their emotions settle and some rational thought can appear.
I'm saying this mostly as a devils advocate. Personally I think they should thrash around insanely lashing out randomly looking like babies having a temper tantrum because "my side" will come out far ahead.
Due to various purges there seems to be no adult leadership of the D party at this time which is why the calmest most rational advice most likely to bring them to victory in the future is coming from a devils advocate who's firmly on the other side. The lack of adult leadership means they're doomed anyway, and my being white and their being anti-white and into identity politics means I could serve up a winning platform for the D party on a platter and they'd refuse it because I'm a Fing white male and they hate my kind.
I don't think Trump is far enough right wing, and/or he's holding back until the temper tantrum's settle a bit. I mean, he's not even giving free helicopter rides to leftist intellectuals yet, he doesn't have camps set up, none of that. Lefties call him Hitler, which is a little encouraging, but he has a hell of a long way to go to get where he needs to be. Maybe the next guy? Watching Berkeley CA liberal types call him Hitler is like having them call Chicago "New York City". Sure you got yer hearts in the right place but I know Chicago, and you got to move a hell of a long way rightward on the map to reach New York City. I'm sure in crazy california anything east of the burbs in LA is like literally NYC but I assure you Trumps got a hell of a long way rightward to go to get where he needs to be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:58PM
So it would be pretty dumb for the losers to propose policy for at least a year or two until their emotions settle and some rational thought can appear.
It would be pretty dumb to appear complacent with the R side doing whatever they want while your constituents are pissed-off. The R team demonstrated that the obstructive strategy was very effective, but the D team doesn't seem to have the party unity or the spine that the R team had when they were down.
Do you really want Trump to be more right wing? It sounds like you want him to be more authoritarian and less libertarian.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:58PM
The right always complains about the alleged "mass left bias" of college professors, Hollywood, and "main stream media". BOTH sides complain about similar things with regard to "news", just from different sources. It doesn't hurt to float suggestions.
So both parties have the same problem now. One has an orange toddler that just happens to be at the main desk.
Both sides think the other is screwing them. I won't get into that long and messy topic today.
Being right-leaning is only part of the key complaints against T. Erratic, petty, and xenophobic behavior also stands out.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Monday February 06 2017, @10:13PM
rejected by a majority of the population.
I wasn't aware 45.9% constituted a majority.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by slinches on Monday February 06 2017, @11:38PM
I think he was referencing the >50% that didn't vote for the establishment democrat candidate.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday February 07 2017, @09:18AM
Clearly a good reason why the alternate vote system should be used in presidential elections, it would give people a chance to vote for someone other than Kang/Kodos without worrying that Kang might get in.
It's a shame Bernie wasn't put forward as candidate for the dems, he was by far the best choice especially against Trump, but enough Dems were mobilised to vote with their brain rather than their hearts. It's a shame a sensible Republican wasn't put forward too, on the order of Mccain or Romney.
Either way, more people rejected the divisive policies of Trump. 25.4% voted for Trump.
By comparison 25.9% voted for Romney in 2012, 26.6% voted for McCain , 27.4% voted for Kerry. It hasn't been since Bush the Second that fewer people voted for a main party candidate.
Fewer and fewer people are backing the Republicans each year. Whether you're a trump fan or not, a GOP fan or not, it's a concern, both in the party, the president, and the legitimacy of democracy at it's core.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 06 2017, @10:19PM
Oh burn in Hell you stupid bastard. "Your side" is not ON "your side." They care for no one but themselves. You'll envy the dead if "your side" ever get their way.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 06 2017, @10:42PM
Thats what I mean about the whole Kübler-Ross model thingy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model [wikipedia.org]
We sat thru the endless violent demonstrations of "He's not my president" and "The Russians hacked the election" and "It was all due to Fake News" and now we're going thru the whole "I hate the world phase". Look at the recent uptick in political violence at demonstrations. Traditionally this is when political parties turn on themselves and do a nice big ole purge.
Eventually we'll see a stage of "next time I'm gonna campaign really harder for ... whoever is the D nominee Warren I donno" maybe even a hint of bipartisianship, maybe. "Sure we lost but its not all bad we can always riot and I need new tennis shoes anyway"
After that some depression "ah well a thousand year reich at least its not two thousand years" "I can always move to Canada, maybe"
Finally they'll be some acceptance and they'll be able to think rationally and maybe be a threat in the next election, if they chill out that fast, which is possible...
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @10:52PM
I will grant that you said "establishment lefties" therefore targeting the Democratic party, and sure they need their asses handed to them almost as much as the Republicans.
But now you're branching out to all "progressives" so you're really just a partisan hack. Its funny how you got the whole "majority of the country" part totally wrong... guess everyone can tell themselves pretty little lies to boost their own self-esteem as if their crappy world views are validated.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:02AM
The "stages of grief," and grief itself, are luxuries. I cannot afford them. So I don't have them. Instead, I have what I've always had: pure, clearsighted, simple vision. I've seen this show before; it never ends well. And it's always small-time nobodies like you who think you stand to gain from this sort of chaos that are cheering it on, to your soul's peril.
People like you appear in every era, and in every era, their fate is the same...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:24AM
LMAO - you're the only one with clear vision. Yeah - got it.
A MAN Just Won a Gold Medal for Punching a Woman in the Face
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:26AM
One of many. I'm just a lot less polite about it than most. If that bothers you? Then gb2/hugbox/, Runaway. Don't make me come for you with the belt like your daddy did; you may find women are even worse.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:04AM
You're being downright silly now. You actually want to try to CREATE a mysogenist? Women are going to love you for that.
Good luck to you or anyone else coming after me anyway. I'm not a helpless pre-teen anymore. Funny thing about abusing children. The children tend to grow up, but all you have to look forward to is growing old. The children will get their vengeance, eventually.
And, no, your vision isn't any clearer than Joe Redneck Sixpack and his family. Keep telling yourself that it is, but that doesn't make it so. Liberals/progressives are no less gullible than conservatives. You're just listening to a different pied piper.
A MAN Just Won a Gold Medal for Punching a Woman in the Face
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday February 08 2017, @01:21AM
Masturbation is public is illegal. Put that tiny thing away before it gets caught in yer zipper.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 08 2017, @03:07AM
There you go again - obsessing over my equipment. You're just not right, 'zumi.
A MAN Just Won a Gold Medal for Punching a Woman in the Face
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday February 08 2017, @05:55AM
Then stop wasting oxygen and electrons replying to me. You have these moments of occasional lucidity that make me think you can still be saved, but by and large i see you becoming more and more nihilistic and amoral. You won't break the cycle, so maybe you need to suffer more until you have motivation to.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 08 2017, @02:53PM
Don't try to save me - I'm perfectly happy where I am.
As for oxygen and electrons - they aren't yours, so you have no say over how I use them.
A MAN Just Won a Gold Medal for Punching a Woman in the Face
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday February 08 2017, @06:57PM
You aren't even close to perfectly happy. No one who was happy would act like you do. But you know, that's fine; I'm about out of drive to invest in people like you. The country's in a tailspin and now I have to focus on survival. You can join the real whackaloons we've got here in hell.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:55AM
First they came for the x, I was not an x so I did nothing
Then they came for the y, but I was not a y so I did nothing
Then they came for the z, but I was not a z so I did nothing.
The warning we are supposed to take from this is that as a z I need to make sure and stick up for the x. When this all began I had the opinion that if it goes down the way the x fears, I will step in as a z. Unfortunately the x decide rather than be helped they would rather call z a monster. As this has progressed, I will end up waiting for y before I decide to act. Because y isn't calling me a monster. Guess in the end I will become what I fight, but at least I wont have to deal with x anymore.
So good job doing the job of the fascist by choosing to divide us yourself. All z cared about was someone who at least lied about caring and trying to find them employment, and for that they are told they are privaledged and the problem of all the worlds ills. Now they care about making x shut up, congrats. Hard to say "I am x and I am not the problem" while rioting and destroying the goods, homes, and persons in y, z, lmnop.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: -1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 06 2017, @11:32PM
I knew you wouldn't be able to help yourself. Kudos on another well thought-out, intellectually stimulating response. Now, cap it off by telling me how evil I am and that I'm going to hell too. Pretty please?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 06 2017, @11:57PM
Why? We all know it already. Maybe you and he can save some money and get a group ticket. I gave up on you ages ago.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:43PM
Ahh TMB never loose that petty trollishiness. You realize the rest of the staff keep you around only because they dont want to appear too liberal. Thats right you are the token righty on staff. Thats like working for NBC. How do you sleep at night?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:33PM
Naked. What? He asked...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Funny) by moondoctor on Monday February 06 2017, @11:42PM
Fish on!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @10:39PM
LOL. Thanks Spicer, that troll made my day. In fact, it was rejected by the largest landslide margin in the history of histories.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:06AM
The establishment lefties are going thru the usual psychological stages of grief about their obsolete belief system getting rejected by a majority of the population.
Voting "anyone but Clinton" is no more rejection of any given political idea than voting "anyone who will advocate for the restoration of German pride" is endorsement of putting people in concentration camps.
Lefties call him Hitler
I don't call him Hitler. The vocal minorities of communist revolutionaries and political hippies does not represent everyone, do not attribute their toxic bile to the silent majority.
(Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:42AM
> "The establishment lefties are going thru the usual psychological stages of grief about their obsolete belief system getting rejected by a majority of the population."
No, the majority supported it. The Electoral College rejected it. Big difference.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:13PM
Majority of voters != majority of the population
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Monday February 06 2017, @09:39PM
No. Just no. Read the article, you can see the subtext almost plainer than the actual words. It is a scream at their Prog allies, "You IDIOTS! Trump is the President, do you want to hand him this weapon?"
It should never exist, for anyone, anywhere, at any time or place. Just NO!
Does anyone think -any- government 'fake news' Czar is ever going to punish the NYT or CNN? To ask the question is to answer it and know what it would be used as, a weapon to destroy small media. Wouldn't matter who created it, wouldn't matter who controlled it at first, that is where it would evolve because it is the only path open to it to grow power and ALL government agencies have that as mission #1.
What part of "Congress shall make no law..." do people have trouble reading?
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Monday February 06 2017, @09:51PM
What part of "Congress shall make no law..." do people have trouble reading?
Quick update for you... we don't "do" laws any more.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday February 06 2017, @10:06PM
> Does anyone think -any- government 'fake news' Czar is ever going to punish the NYT or CNN?
If this misguided and probably unlawful idea were implemented during Mr. Trump's tenure, the New York Times would be a plausible target for enforcement:
The failing @nytimes has been wrong about me from the very beginning. Said I would lose the primaries, then the general election. FAKE NEWS!
-- https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825328817833123840 [twitter.com]
Thr [sic] coverage about me in the @nytimes and the @washingtonpost gas been so false and angry that the times actually apologized to its...
...dwindling subscribers and readers.They got me wrong right from the beginning and still have not changed course, and never will. DISHONEST
-- https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825329757646618624 [twitter.com] and https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825331665509691393 [twitter.com]
Somebody with aptitude and conviction should buy the FAKE NEWS and failing @nytimes and either run it correctly or let it fold with dignity!
-- https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825690087857995776 [twitter.com]
The failing @nytimes story is so totally wrong on transition. It is going so smoothly. Also, I have spoken to many foreign leaders.
-- https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/798861300453539840 [twitter.com]
Australia, New Zealand, and more. I am always available to them. @nytimes is just upset that they looked like fools in their coverage of me.
-- https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/798864532433211392 [twitter.com]
On another occasion, Mr. Trump asked the New York Times to retract a story. He also threatened to sue the paper over the story. He called one of its reporters "a disgusting human being" when she questioned him about the story.
http://www.nytco.com/the-new-york-timess-response-to-donald-trumps-retraction-letter/ [nytco.com]
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-plans-to-sue-the-new-york-times/ [cbsnews.com]
I doubt that CNN would be a sacred cow. Breitbart News, maybe.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday February 07 2017, @01:45AM
I agree with jmorris, which should tell you how bad of an idea this is since we're somewhere near the opposite ends of the political spectrum.
The only legitimate counter to speech or printed words that you don't like or think is wrong: Speech and printed words that refute them, ideally with solid evidence and logic. Giving anybody the power to simply shut people up means that power can defeat truth in the minds of those who are paying attention. That leads to a "reality" that is increasingly divorced from actual reality. That was one of the many reasons the Soviet Union collapsed: When nobody can tell the truth and survive, those making decisions can't hear what reality actually is, which guarantees bad decisions even from well-intentioned leaders (never mind ill-intentioned leaders who of course will make bad decisions regardless).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:16AM
Its making a mountain out of a molehill. One op-ed column said something that was more click-bait than anything else, techdirt took the bait and spooged all over it and now we're getting techdirt's sloppy seconds here. Of course this was never going to happen. But it did give a lot of people the chance to signal the shit out of their virtue.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:41AM
The appropriate course is to take them to court for fraud. If they can't provide evidence or sources for what they're printing, then they are scammers and can be dealt with in the usual way.
The problem here is that the courts seem to think that the distinction between news and entertainment isn't important. That organizations can claim to be "news" in all their advertisements and such, but be providing entertainment when anybody calls them on publishing known fake news articles.
It's one thing to publish and article or more that turns out to be true based upon a sincere belief that the sourcing and the rest was true and quite another to be making shit up that you know to be false. Libel has been illegal for quite some time and it's not unreasonable to extend that to instances where the government or the public at large was harmed by reporting that was known to use lies as the only substantiation.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:02PM
1. Defamation and libel is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
2. A libel suit is an after-the-fact remedy, not a prior restraint on publishing information.
3. The legal standards for defamation of a public figure, especially a politician, are very very high. You have to prove that the defendant knew the claim was false, knew the claim would be taken seriously, and had "actual malice" when they did it. For example, Bill Maher can joke about Donald Trump being the son of an orange-haired orangutan, and that's completely legal. Also legal would be a reporter making an honest mistake like having sources that claimed that Nancy Pelosi was having an affair when she wasn't.
4. The Streisand Effect means that defamation suits tend to bring more attention to the alleged libel, so it's a risky move.
What the FTC is talking about here is being able to, say, censor out stuff before it gets to an audience because it's "fake news". Which they shouldn't be able to do under any reasonable reading of the First Amendment.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:33PM
> What the FTC is talking about here is
Is nothing.
The FTC isn't saying anything. Its just some asshole with a newspaper column and a deadline.
Do not make this into more than it is.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:55AM
I think you're right on this one.
But I also think there might be a function of the government here:
If the government is made to notice that their population's minds are affected by this propaganda, they can instruct the Depertment of Education to allocate budget to offer all the English teachers refreshment courses on how to immunize their pupils, by giving them several hours of lessons about *critical* reading and *critical* thinking.
I went to a so-called "elite" school in the city (despite not being from the elite; but in those years that was allowed). My Dutch teachers used I think half a year to teach the kids how to write for a purpose, how to identify what difficulty of words to choose for your target audience, how to convince a government / your buyers / your underlings, and especially: how to read a text in such a way as to deconstruct what purpose the writer had to make you read that text, and what thoughts he/she wants to put in your head. Also the basic fallacies, wookies, etc.
I think it should still be a crime to set people up to violence against each other, because some people are just not that smart (football hooligans come to mind), and when it can be proven in a court of law that some agitator wrote a text / speech to make their blood boil in order to target the agitator's "enemies" with the influenced's violence, that should be punished as a crime. Difficult to prove though because the agitator can easily claim it was all just for laughs, he (usually a he) didn't think people were so stupid as to follow up on it. This is probably different between Europe and the USA, where the USA is holding tight to its First Amendment on free speech, and the Germans punish Neo-Nazis harshly because they remember what bloodlust Goebbels easily instigated in their great grandfathers and mothers.
The British had put the hate preacher Abu Hamza (Captain Hook) in jail, I think. Would you have allowed him to continue to preach? Difficult question.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:41PM
Under no circumstances should a government in a self proclaimed free country regulate news.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:45AM
They're not. They're regulating fake news out of existence. As long as the organization has actual sources to cover their articles, then that ought to be enough. In that case, it's not fake news it's news that's just shitty. Shitty news is best dealt with by the market deciding that the news outlet isn't trust worthy.
Journals that can't provide sources for the quotes they're attributing to people are and should be put out of business. That's not a particularly difficult line to draw. Sure, there's some fuzziness about accidental misquotes or cases where people change their minds about being quoted in print, but those are things that are already dealt with by the courts. Going the further step of shutting down papers that as a matter of routine make their articles up, isn't as problematic as people seem to think.
It is something that can be done in a way that's fair minded and doesn't adversely effect actual news outlets.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:55PM
I'm all but certain that Woodward and Bernstein would vehemently disagree. In fact, one of the criticisms of their Watergate coverage was the use of unnamed sources. At the time it was rather controversial. Of course, they did have actual people as sources for their Watergate stories; they just couldn't name them for fear of retaliation. The problem we have today is very different. The fake news stories that are being circulated do not have any sources because the events described are frequently made up out of whole cloth. And these fake news stories do have real consequences. [politifact.com] So, where to draw the line? Should the Washington Post have been put out of business because Woodward and Bernstein were not naming their deep undercover sources? How do you determine the difference between reporters of a legitimate story who don't want to name their sources because of fear of reprisal and reporters of fake news who do not have any sources to back up their incredible claims? Do they not look more or less equally suspect to the naive reader? I think that line is much harder to draw than you seem to imagine. Shouldn't the onus really be on the individual readers to critically evaluate the stories they are reading? At what point do we hold the readers accountable for evaluating the news they consume? And how should we hold each other accountable for falling for made up bullshit? Would it even make a difference or are people just so emotionally invested in the alternative narrative of reality being peddled that facts just don't matter to them anymore?
Yeah. Says you. What would you propose? Some sort of federal commission to evaluate news stories for "truthiness"? Who would be put in charge of said commission? You do realize that the Republicans now have control of two branches of the federal government, right? Would you be comfortable with Donald Trump naming members to this new commission to ferret out (and punish) untruthiness? Seriously?!?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:40PM
Well said. For dessert why don't we have HHS allow people to be just a little bit pregnant in order to cut down on health costs. It would be about the same success as trying to limit or regulate the first amendment just a little bit.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:46PM
If the marketing of prescription drugs to non-medical professionals is acceptable, then I don't see how fraudulent/exaggerated/biased reporting could be unacceptable.
The prescribing of drugs requires advanced training to understand if they are appropriate for use, but people can be urged to "ask their doctor about ..." while a misleading advertisement filled with incongruence plays in the background.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Zz9zZ on Monday February 06 2017, @09:47PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As many articles have pointed out, lies have always been around and people have always wondered "what to do about it??". We already did something about it in a bid to prevent totalitarian bullshit like North Korea and China with their state sanctioned Truths.
People can lie all they want, and we already have laws against libel.
TMB you're bias shows... like, a LOT!
the weird obsession some people upset by the results of the election have had with the concept of "fake news."
I live in California and the only people I hear raging about "fake news" are conservatives. I work in tech and had some older conservative asshole get in my face and insult me based on my appearance, I had not even said a single word to him. Then he goes into "what will we do about this fake news problem?" and blames me because I know how to use computers... I pointed out that the 1st amendment means there is nothing we can do, and he responded with "that's what YOU think". Conservatives are trying to find excuses to create an authoritarian theocracy and they metaphorically shit on the Constitution because it means they aren't allowed to force their thinking upon others.
Religious conservatives are just mad that "progressive" ideology is winning, and since they can not win by the power of their beliefs they will resort to violence and power to force themselves on others. The irony is strong, the hypocrisy is strong, down with the traitors to the Constitution and the Freedoms it has brought to the people. All freedoms that had to be fought for, demanded, even though they were supposedly guaranteed by the constitution. Looks like we'll have to have a second Civil Rights movement to reverse the evil shit being done right now.
Thankfully Trump torpedoed the TPP so it isn't all bad...
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 4, Informative) by DannyB on Monday February 06 2017, @10:50PM
As you say, there have always been lies. (Now we lie about the lies and call them "alternate facts")
The government shouldn't regulate the news.
I would think the answer should be education. But so many people like the right wing guy who spontaneously yelled at you seem to cherish ignorance as some sort of value. If you're educated, you're one of the elites. The enemy.
If we want to fix things, and it won't be overnight, we need to invest more in education. Our education system is a failure. It turns out people who know how fat each of the kardashian's asses are, but can't point out any country on a map. They look confused if asked to point out where the Canada-Australia border is. :-) Etc
Police can legally stop you for having too much tent on your window.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 06 2017, @11:46PM
Just curious, which party holds most of the jobs in education? You think there might be some causation there or just a really big coincidence?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:31AM
It's probably the same party that owns the scientists and maintains the global conspiracy on global warming, evolution and gravitational "theory".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:51PM
Do I think it is a coincidence that the majority of people with higher education disagree with trump and his policies... Hmm IDK what do you think TMB. Could all the educated people be wrong and you and your friends playing banjo over there are right? DO you really think its some sort of conspiracy, or can you just for a minute make your mind pliable enough to say, hey.... Maybe I am wrong.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:32PM
No, sweety, do you think it's a coincidence that progressives run our schools and that our schools are failing miserably while eating up ever larger portions of our budgets?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Troll) by aristarchus on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:28PM
do you think it's a coincidence that progressives run our schools and that our schools are failing miserably while eating up ever larger portions of our budgets?
It is not so much that it is coincidence as it is not true? Have you been listening to President Tiny Hands, or his Sec Ed nominee again? Not failing, not all that expensive. Fake News! It is the culture war by the right that is making America Ignorant Again. Just imagine if conservatives ran schools! Conservapedia type schools? Special Schools where the Professor Watchlist people would have safe-from-ideas zones, poor babies. Kansas schools? Yes, oh Minty Busstie', there is a correlation between education and progressivism, but the causation runs the opposite of the way you assume.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:10PM
Aristarchus, no matter how vehemently say it, a lie will always be a lie. We've been headed nowhere but down in education for decades now. We're not even in the top ten anymore. Despite throwing neverending piles of progressively (pun intended) more cash at it. You don't get to have alternative facts.
I expect if conservatives ran education, standards would be set, results would be demanded, and those that couldn't manage them would fail. I also expect private schools would become a much more attractive option for the middle class and the poor, being the greedy fuckwads they are, would demand what they want even though they haven't earned it and their kids would be given vouchers for private schools as well. Then the public school system would collapse without anyone except those whose livelihoods depended on mediocrity to mourn it. Then we'd soon have the same problem with K-12 that we have with universities. Outrageous fees because they're guaranteed to be paid by the feds.
Neither major party has the solution. And it doesn't lie somewhere in the middle. An actual workable solution is going to have to be started from the ground up. Preferably without a single politician or bureaucrat involved until it comes time to vote for it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 08 2017, @02:45AM
We've been headed nowhere but down in education for decades now. We're not even in the top ten anymore. Despite throwing neverending piles of progressively (pun intended) more cash at it. You don't get to have alternative facts.
I know this cramps your style, Buzz, but prove it. My facts are not alternative if your facts are not facts at all but Fox News/Trump Inauguration memes!
an education system flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge, and the crime, and the gangs, and the drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential. This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.
Our young and beautiful students, with pageant scholarships, no doubt, deprived of all knowledge! All! Just look a the American educational carnage! Kids these days are not just a little bit ignorant, they do not just place lower than Finnish kids on standardized testss, the have no knowledge at all. Zip. Nada. Bupkiss!! So I can see why you are so upset, Buzz. You musta been one o' those students!! Oh, the huge manatee!!! (It would be Huge, wouldn't it.)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 08 2017, @03:10AM
Well, you did ask for it, so here you go [cnn.com].
Yay! We only suck horribly instead of atrociously! Fuck's sake, we're the richest nation in the world. We can do better than this.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 08 2017, @09:46AM
The US improved on its 2012 performance by moving up to 25 on the list.
Yay! We only suck horribly instead of atrociously! Fuck's sake, we're the richest nation in the world. We can do better than this.
Yeah, but:
In terms of countries’ education expenditures by education level in 2012, the percentage of GDP the United States spent on elementary/secondary education (3.6 percent) was slightly lower than the OECD average (3.7 percent).
And we can do better at interpreting stats? From 36th to 25th? How is such a dramatic improvement possible, whilst American Educational Carnage is going on? And Rank tells us very little. What were the average, mean, and medians? Maybe you only suck moderately, which is remarkable and a salute to your educators, since they have to operate in an environment of American anti-intellectualism, hatred of teachers, revilement of teachers unions, and the insult of having a total idiot appointed to be the Secretary of Education.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 08 2017, @10:54AM
Yes, I'm sure that someone just appointed has made a huge impact on past numbers.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 08 2017, @06:44PM
The fact that Betsy DeVos could be appointed speaks volumes more about the state of education in America than any test results. Result, not a cause; symptom, not the disease. Someone asked, how dumb can the US Senate be? And the Trump admin said, "Let's find out!" Now we know, and knowing is half the battle. Unfortunately, we will never actually get to the second half.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 09 2017, @02:59AM
You're right, identity is way more important than results. What was I thinking?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday February 09 2017, @04:33AM
identity is way more important than results.
This is one of the major blockages in right wing feefees in America. It is not about identity, it is about competence. DeVos is incompetent. She also happens to benefit from the Amway fortune, and be the sister of Blackwater founder and ex-patriot, Erik Prince. But all that is neither here nor there, she could not identify "results" because for her, ignorance and religion are the result of what she calls "education". Oh, and "school choice" allows wealthier white parents to choose schools that the poor and non-white cannot afford, even with the wonderful freemarket, government enforced, voucher system.
What was I thinking?
We have discussed this before, Bighty Musstard! It is not "what", it is the lack of "thinking". You have completely changed the topic, avoided addressing the actual stats on American education, well done, oh champion of libertarianism! I will have to take this as an admission that you got nothing, nothing but Trump. And having Trump is actually worse than nothing, as the Republican party is about to find out.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 09 2017, @11:21AM
And this is why you will always be a better troll than Azuma Hazuki, though I would have went with "Blighty" instead.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday February 14 2017, @04:25AM
A "bight" is a version of a "bend", something of a tight knot. A Blight is a disease that affects plants, mostly. I stick by my choice. But if you prefer, you could have it your way.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Monday February 06 2017, @10:53PM
the only people I hear raging about "fake news" are conservatives
Yes, and they are the same people who have spent the last eight years bombarding social media with shares of the most utterly preposterous tripe, claiming outrage over the "news" they were informing us about. It usually took only minutes (after clicking through several pages of search results showing conservative blogs all parroting the same misinformation) to find the original text of a speech or original article and debunk these claims. Some will claim liberals do the same, but unless I have a really unusual mix of friends and family, that is not the case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @11:23PM
unless I have a really unusual mix of friends and family
I'd bet that you do. The chances of you having an unbiased, represententive sample of all "liberals" is incredibly low.
Be wary of cognative bias, especially your own.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 06 2017, @11:47PM
You have an unusual mix of friends and family.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:59AM
No matter how hard you wish it to be so, the guys who make money off peddling lies found that the market just wasn't there.
We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs [npr.org]
Anyone who listens to talk radio knows its true - 90% of the syndicated ads on talk radio are for scams. That's because they know the audience is primarily credulous fools.
That's not to say liberals are completely immune to fake news. Just that the herd immunity is a lot stronger because modern liberal culture has embraced facts and science over truthiness and emotion.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:52AM
What planet are you living on? The entire progressive platform lately has been about not hurting their feelz. Conservatives and libertarians are constantly being accused of being unfeeling simply because we don't give a shit if you're offended.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:05AM
That is because you listen to the dogma put out by those who fancy themselves your master. You are manipulated beyond belief by fake bullshit propped up by emotional xenophobia. The number of liberals that fit your description are small and mostly exist in universities where they are still growing up and learning about themselves. Conservatives are the ones who easily get their feelings hurt, and due to some weird trick of human nature that insecurity leads them to lash out at others. You can see the same phenomenon with liberals as well, but as the other commenter pointed out it is much less likely in a liberal population. Why again? Because liberals are much more accepting of new viewpoints, they value education more, and they are more likely to value science over the magic sky fairy.
In case you missed my point, conservatives are easily hurt which is why they lash out in ways that appear to be unfeeling and cruel. It isn't that you don't give a shit, that is just your attempt at rationalization and externalizing the issues. To be fair, quite a few liberals have the same failings. Their insecurity leads them on their own crusades for social justice. At least they try and improve the world in their flawed way, conservatives tend to let their insecurity lead to fear and hatred. I'll take the insecure liberal, they're about 10x more likely to respond to factual evidence and rational discourse. Conservatives, or libertarians as you now like to be called, tend to ignore facts with a single minded stubbornness. The more evidence you bring against them the more they dig in their heels and twist the facts into some crazy kaleidoscope of logic.
All that said, there is a lot of value in conservative people. And there is a lot of troubling behavior in liberals. But you would do well to actually learn some facts and experience reality instead of buying into the reality dictated by the talking heads.
One of my good friends is conservative...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:41PM
No, sweety, I just listen to tools like you on the left. You're happy to fill me in on how offending you should be legally banned and anyone doing so should also be fired from their job, have the swat team sent to their house, be no-platformed if they try to speak out in their own defense, and otherwise ostracized from society. Oh, and we should apparently go to hell too according to my favorite progtard on here.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @11:10PM
So your sample of 1 is the whole of the rest of the united states?
As a 'conservative' this is a pants down stupid idea. It would quickly turn into a political football to be used to bully the other party when they are in charge. The democrats used the IRS to do it a few years ago. Why would they not do it again?
Religious conservatives
Ah so you do not really know conservatives but have a nice pejorative for them. If you think 'progressive' is winning look to the state legislatures and governerships. The DNC has a *lot* of work to do.
they will resort to violence and power to force themselves on others
You have not been watching the news much have you? Or are you just being ironic?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 06 2017, @11:43PM
Ya reckon? I haven't RTFA yet. Saw it in my RSS feed and did an automated submission through IRC because I knew it'd stir some interesting discussion.
A) Religious conservatives are not a significant power in the Republican party and haven't been since the 80s.
B) Check your bullshit on violence. Republicans aren't the ones rioting, looting, burning shit, assaulting people, and causing the deaths of innocents simply because someone dared to disagree with them. That would be progressives. Entirely progressives, not even a mixed bag.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:00AM
I was not talking about rioting, I was talking about the government authority that libertarians complain so vocally about. The "monopoly on violence" to push laws on us poor folks. The US has gotten incredibly more progressive in the last 60 years: no more legal segregation, women's rights over their own bodies, etc. Religious conservatives can't stand this and this, along with other more valid issues such as immigration and outsourcing of jobs, and this election cycle they were able to come out on top with a winning minority.
Let's see if we can look at history and not just the last few crazy months of this election. Y'know, to get some real perspective.
On the conservative side: lynchings, beatings, murders, destruction of property, vandalism, bombing abortion clinics. All done by extremist conservatives.
On the liberal side: destruction of property, vandalism, much less murder and physical violence against people.
All humans can be violent, but progressives/liberals are more humane as a general group. Conservatives are less humane as a group unless you are on their side. This holds true across all countries, and I'm sure you'll trot out "communists" as an example of failed liberal/progressive ideas but don't bother, that red herring is about dictatorship not progressive/liberal ideology.
So historically the religious conservatives are the ones reacting with violence and hatred, progressive liberals are more likely to destroy equipment to stop projects they don't like but actual murder and physical violence is much lower. 8 years of Obama and we have a loooot of evidence for how batshit crazy conservatives can be, but you aren't crying foul there, nope nope only now that liberals are causing a ruckus.
I'm gonna go with "piss off" for your one sided view of reality. Twist the facts to suit your purposes and ignore the facts that show you're wrong. Good show, TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP! (I know you're not his biggest fan, but you sure fit the profile)
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:43AM
That liberal and progressive largely coincided until the late 90s should not be taken as an endorsement of progressiveism. Progressiveism can never end or those making money off of it stop making money off of it. Thus, once a rough equality was reached, they turned away from equality and began progressing in another direction entirely. So, no, progressiveism is not a good thing. It is an entirely self-serving and quite vile thing.
Bullshit. Pick any timespan ending now in the US that conservatives were more violent than progressives. Conservatives simply are not as inherently malevolent as progressives. As for the current decade? It's all you lot, baby. All of it. Your lot's hissy fit over Trump getting elected stopped ambulances and people died. Your lot viciously beat students at UC Berkeley for having different views. Your lot needs to take a long, hard look at itself and see if its actions are really how they want to go about things, because I guarantee you conservatives and the actual liberals, libertarians, won't tolerate it for much longer.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday February 07 2017, @01:17AM
I never said there weren't extremist liberals, there totally are. However, percentage-wise the conservative base has typically had a more violent population and no amount of hissy fits from you will change that fact. As usual you have selective memory where the facts only support your world view, so we can stop this back and forth as we obviously disagree and will find no common ground. If you hadn't thrown in your little editorial "some people upset by the results of the election" then we wouldn't be having this conversation. But no, you had to throw partisan spin into it.
Without common ground we have no way forward, so I guess we can spit at each other across no man's land once the civil war breaks out.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:21AM
He means un-sanctioned violence. Y'see when the state does it, so long as he agrees with it, it's fine.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:29AM
Yes, do please tell everyone how the poster boy libertarian adores state use of power. Might as well say you're a libertarian yourself and then go on about how you want the government to use its power to make people act, speak, and think like you believe they should some more.
Here's a clue since I know you'll never get one for yourself: if you find yourself thinking your plans would work wonderfully if only you had better people, you're a tyrant. Or a wannabe tyrant in your case.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:25AM
How many cases of lightbulbs do you go through a month, projecting like that? You fool no one but yourself. I've seen all this shit happen before and it never ends well.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @02:46AM
She's got you there, TMB you're definitely more the type that would make other people conform to your desires. I recall some thread where you bitched about employees and had all sorts of gripes, you're a tyrannical boss which is common for computer nerd types. Flexing your authority because you believe you're so much smarter / more insightful than everyone else.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday February 08 2017, @05:58AM
Look closer at his history: he is about the same as the very Steve Bannon we're railing against. He's in favor of "burning it all down," which is thinly-disguised code for a complete coup d'etat and remaking of the nation in his desires' image...and if you've seen the shit he posts you know what that is.
The worst part is the bizarre, almost teenaged sense of invincibility and entitlement he has. He actually seems to think he's some kind of temporarily-embarrassed elite who will be showered in money and power in the new world. I've been telling him for ages now that the kind of fire that will burn it all down will consume him with it...and continue to ravage him in hell.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:49AM
"so I guess we can spit at each other across no man's land once the civil war breaks out."
That would be funny, if it weren't so stupid. Ask yourself - "Who bought all those guns that Obama prompted Americans to buy?" The vast majority of gun owners are independent, libertarian, or conservative. Those "blue islands" in the political maps are where the liberals live, and those islands have the strictest gun laws in the nation. So, you envision the hoplophobic left suddenly acquiring arms, in sufficient quantities to overcome the conservative element in the US? You also presume that you will find sufficient numbers of lefties who are proficient in the use of those weapons?
You better search harder for that common ground you mentioned, because the civil war won't go the way you envision.
A MAN Just Won a Gold Medal for Punching a Woman in the Face
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:36AM
QED huh? Speaking of stupid I guess you are doubling down?
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:40PM
My Gawd Runaway, you are an idjit! Doncha know that there are more liberals than racist conservatives in 'Merica? Don't you know that number of liberals who have guns is almost twice the number of conservatives? Don't you know that liberals are better shots, since they do not foam at the mouth and violently shake with rage? And most importantly, liberals tend not to get shot with their own firearms as much as conservatives do, when they are "playing" with them, when the toddler gets a holt of them, when they "didn't know it was loaded". So the left does not need to acquire, they are already ready. The are the descendants of those flamin' liberals, the Minutemen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:39PM
Ah, so we finally reach the nub of the matter: might makes right. It's refreshing, in an odd sort of a way, that you have finally dropped all pretense that you are at all interested in democracy. And Obama did not prompt you guys to buy any guns; that is entirely on you and your paranoid fantasies.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:42AM
"On the conservative side: lynchings, beatings, murders, destruction of property, vandalism, bombing abortion clinics. All done by extremist conservatives.
On the liberal side: destruction of property, vandalism, much less murder and physical violence against people."
Except - the KKK was made up of Democrats. Historically, the "left" have killed far more people than the right, by orders of magnitude. Or - are you redefining Russia and China as right? Interesting thing I read today - when a left leaning government starts killing people off, the global "community" just shrugs, and mutters crap about making omelets, and broken eggs. But, when a right leaning government kills some people, then the same global "community" is up in arms, ready to commit their own atrocities in the name of "justice".
And, the masses accept that kind of shit, because mass media writes it up in pretty terms.
Please, do look at history. But, don't just look at the few years of your own lifetime.
A MAN Just Won a Gold Medal for Punching a Woman in the Face
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:02AM
Yes it was. Democrats who were trying to preserve the status quo. i.e. Conservatives
The Republicans were fighting against that, trying to bring some measure of equality to the USA. i.e. progressives.
Then the Southern Strategy happened. Things are different now.
Democratic/Republican and Conservative/Progressive are largely unrelated axes. Neither party has a monopoly on either concept.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @10:25AM
Dylann Roof is a progressive now.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday February 06 2017, @10:34PM
The way unabashedly untrue things have a way of proliferating through our culture, especially recently, especially on the right(yes "both" sides are bad, conservatives continue to be far, far worse) is probably a top-ten issue for what's going to cause the most harm over the next century.
But fuck any part of the government trying to deal with it. We have neither the self-regulation, nor the skill to do so in a way that improves the situation.
And that's ignoring the way our current leadership has a tendency to call objective truth "fake news".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @10:51PM
The only reason that "Fake News" is any sort of problem, is that it has the capacity to move large numbers of people to push the buttons and pull the levers of a giant machine called "government", whose purpose is to impose (violently) some dictate on the whole of society.
Fake News is a symptom of people's struggle to gain control of this machine; the fundamental issue is not the fake news, but rather the fact that even the most "enlightened" cultures have organized themselves around a foundation of violent imposition.
The key is not to regulate fake news, but rather to diminish the destructive power of government (ideally to nothing; it's the last vestige of humanity's uncivilized origins).
In this way, Fake News becomes pointless.
(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.
(Score: 3, Informative) by meustrus on Monday February 06 2017, @11:19PM
I'm going to take the "fake news" name literally for a moment. When it first showed up in the news, the problem seemed to be obviously fake sources trying to cash in on advertising revenue by fabricating especially clickbaity controversies. Obviously the "problem" definition has changed somewhat, but what I described is still a real problem. But much like everything else, politicians won't stop distracting us with the story until the real problem goes away.
The real problem is us. Well, maybe not Soylentil us, but the royal "us" that watches garbage like CNN. We take fact-checking for granted. We expect reporters to tell truth but never check that they actually do. We judge the authenticity of a story based on the organization backing it when each story must be judged solely by its own evidence. And until we stop expecting other people to separate truth from fiction for us, we will always be susceptible to those with alternative facts.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 06 2017, @11:49PM
Terrible nick, excellent comment.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by meustrus on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:27PM
I've used this unique 8-character screen name since middle school you insensitive clod!
And thanks!
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @01:18AM
Some problems:
Persuasive techniques are more effective than rational argument.
Nobody has the expertise necessary to judge the quality of evidence in every field.
Appealing to cognitive bias can fool the smart and the dumb.
It costs less effort to misinform, distract, and exhaust people than it does to inform them.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:56AM
I think I'll call it one of these names. [soylentnews.org]
(P.S. Fix the slow shit, TMB!)
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @10:37AM
[soylentnews.org]
That one's taken.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @01:22PM
SudoNews would be perfect since it sounds like Pseudo News.
(Score: 2) by Covalent on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:11PM
One could argue that fake news is a public health crisis and, therefore, the government has a compelling interest in wading into the waters here:
Fake news encourages people to not vaccinate their children.
My proposal is a simple regulation - all internet news articles must include citations or source material. You can publish whatever you want, with citations or not. But the presence of citation would allow for easier filtering and algorithmic ranking of quality of news article. You could still choose to see uncited work, but it would be opt in to see those things.
Sure there would be problems - for starters, not all citations are created equal. But just the extra step of 'Here's where I got my info:' might be a sufficient barrier to keep total sewage out of the drinking water.
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.