Another day, another very fake news story from the network President Donald Trump has identified as "very fake news."CNN's Thomas Frank on Thursday evening published what would have been considered an explosive report if remotely true: One anonymous source told him both the Treasury Department and Senate Intelligence Committee are probing a Russian investment fund with ties to several senior finance world leaders close to President Trump. Only problem? Both Trump administration officials and those close to Senate GOP leadership say it's simply untrue.
Another day, another very fake news story from the network President Donald Trump has identified as "very fake news."
CNN's Thomas Frank on Thursday evening published what would have been considered an explosive report if remotely true: One anonymous source told him both the Treasury Department and Senate Intelligence Committee are probing a Russian investment fund with ties to several senior finance world leaders close to President Trump. Only problem? Both Trump administration officials and those close to Senate GOP leadership say it's simply untrue.
The retraction from CNN:
On June 22, 2017, CNN.com published a story connecting Anthony Scaramucci with investigations into the Russian Direct Investment Fund.That story did not meet CNN's editorial standards and has been retracted. Links to the story have been disabled. CNN apologizes to Mr. Scaramucci.
According to BuzzFeed News, CNN has responded by actually requiring executives to review stories:
CNN is imposing strict new publishing restrictions for online articles involving Russia after the network deleted a story and then issued a retraction late Friday, according to an internal email obtained by BuzzFeed News.The email went out at 11:21 a.m. on Saturday from Rich Barbieri, the CNNMoney executive editor, saying "No one should publish any content involving Russia without coming to me and Jason," a CNN vice president.
CNN is imposing strict new publishing restrictions for online articles involving Russia after the network deleted a story and then issued a retraction late Friday, according to an internal email obtained by BuzzFeed News.
The email went out at 11:21 a.m. on Saturday from Rich Barbieri, the CNNMoney executive editor, saying "No one should publish any content involving Russia without coming to me and Jason," a CNN vice president.
At least now we'll know who to blame.
[Ed Note: I debated leaving this in politics or dropping it to the main page. I opted for the latter because politics or not, the prevalence of "fake news" is one that we deal with on a daily basis from our respective social media feeds to all the major broadcast and cable news networks. How are we to tell what is "fake" and what is actually (relatively) "true"? The main stream media all put their spin on everything. A right slant for some, a left slant for others. Is the truth somewhere in between, or is it a story that we aren't getting becasue the mainstream media is so intent on telling their narrative that we the people are getting the shit end of the stick regardless of where we get the so called news?]
The article wasn't pulled because it was fake news. It was pulled because the proper procedures to verify the details were not followed.
It may be fake, but we really don't know.
One anonymous source told him
I mean really, guys--you know this whole "fake news" hullabaloo is a thing, right? Maybe try to get a second source if the first is anonymous :P
What do you do when he is anonymous too?
I think the problem is not the anonymous sources, it is the lack of vetting them. Story after story lacks proper sourcing and then ends up being false, the response is to double down and try to find a way to make it true rather than actually find real news.
Sure. We've been hearing about circular reference news that cites Wikipedia without any real sources for years.
I bet some of the time the author suspects it might not be real, but they roll the dice on it to get in before somebody else breaks the story.
Maybe try to get a second source if the first is anonymous :P
Ha!I have fifteen anonymous sources that can confirm that my internet penis is bigger than your's.
you have convinced me...
So, You're the one whose been yelping everytime I snap my laptop shut!
Can't be first to break the story if you wait for verification.
The sources are generally not anonymous to the reporter. We rely on the integrity of the journalists and the organization they work for to vet the sources and write a factual, informative story.
Which won't work if the journalists have no integrity and thus no confidence among the readers. There may be some latency but it's usually a one way function once found out.
Exactly right. And it doesn't work. Back when Woodward and Bernstein were getting the dope from Mark Felt / Deep Throat they couldn't just run with it. The editors wouldn't hear of it because that just isn't how journalism works and they were afraid too many of their subscribers knew it. What they COULD and DID do was allow Felt to explain the inside details and give them clues like "follow the money" which would lead them to actual news. Actual news defined as documents and on the record statements from actual named people. And in the end it was enough, they got their great white whale. History can judge whether it was a good thing. In these post journalism days they just take the anonymous source and run with it, pledging the 'full faith and credibility' of the news organization behind the validity of the claims. And too many times the stories backed only with anonymous sources fall apart. So they quickly spent that faith and credibility and can't figure out why the game isn't working anymore. Remember, the MSM was the morons who started the #FakeNews thing, too blind to see how easy it would be to reverse that charge back on them. Too arrogant to see the obvious, that their popularity ratings was only slightly better (in some polls) than Congress but worse than Bill Cosby, based almost entirely on a perception they were untrustworthy weasels with an agenda. And we haven't even seen polls updated to reflect six months of "Russia! Russia! Russia!" hysteria.
The model is defective. If you are making claims based on nothing more than "trust me, I'm a journalist; I know who the leaker is and I trust them" it is a good thing that people quickly stop believing. At least get some leaked documents. Something! Now that this model is pining for the fjords we can hopefully get back to actual journalism, reporting based on documentable facts and not the personal popularity of the reporter. With the Internet, that means we won't need to restrict 'journalism' to a small cabal prone to groupthink and entryism.
Can I get a camera feed from inside of jmorris gastro-intestinal tract? What with the shit he spins outside, there must be veritable kalidoscopes of stuff up there.
You missed it, AC! teh ProjectVeritas _is_ the feed you are looking for! Fake News, Fake Video, Fake costumes, Fake republicans! Convicted, even! It's that little weasel, oh, what's his name? He so, so wanted to be famous. Now he is just a felon, stuck up jmorris's nether regions. Sad.
Fine, then shift the responsibility to the editor. It's at least partially his job to look at the article from the outside perspective of the reader to avoid making the media corp look like idiots. "So we talked to a single dude who we won't tell you who it is, but take our word on it. Hobo Bob^W^WOur source is very trusted."
But the MSM probably takes it for granted everyone trusts them.
An "anonymous source" is one that will not be publicly identified (for example, because the source could get in trouble for it, or because the journalist has promised secrecy in the hopes of getting more stories in the future). It does not necessarily mean that the journalist doesn't know the identity of the source.
That said, it is definitely safer for the source if the journalist doesn't know his/her identity either, because of all the laws made against journalism under the guise of "national security".
Yup. And I love the summary here, asserting that we know these people aren't under investigation because the people allegedly under investigation have themselves stated that they aren't under investigation. Yeah, I'm not gonna trust Trump on much of anything, but CERTAINLY not about whether or not Trump/Trump staff is under investigation...
Of course, I'm not gonna trust a retracted story from an "anonymous source" either. So I'm not saying the story is *true*, I'm just saying "Suspects claims he's innocent!" really isn't something to lead with. That entire breitbart segment adds nothing of value to this summary.
And we reference fucking brietbart.
Solve humanity's biggest problem, publicly execute BK and cmn32480, for they are too stupid to live.
Nope, sorry, totally willing to sacrifice as much karma as needed here: execute BK and cmn32480, for they are too stupid to live.
execute ikanreed for he is too stupid to live
Yes, tell me more about how your material composition is not-unlike rubber, and I, instead am an adhesive.
Whelp. Funny how the progressives are so quick to resort to violence? Kill those who violate the echo chamber?
I toss obviously slanted Breitbart links in the occasional story because we keep posting stories from 'Common Dreams' and other slanted sources. I'm not sure if that's trolling or if I'm being trolled. In my defense, I also linked CNN itself as a primary source and BuzzFeed which at least pretends to be mainstream - if a bit tabloidish. And the story is _everywhere_ now since heads are rolling at CNN.
I'd happily join with those who think politics should mostly stay off this site. But, history shows, we do like to talk politics...
We aren't. SJWs are to progressives what WBC is to conservatives.
Who wants to write up a complex reply to the kinda person who cites Breitbart and thinks Buzzfeed counts as balance?
I don't particularly respect conservatives' right to life anymore. You're reality immune fascists who are currently threatening the lives of my family with your backwards ideology.
I used to be against the death penalty. That was until I realized that it is the ONLY way to cure a psychopath
Psychopaths are okay compared to modern conservatives, they don't turn being a shitty human being with no redeeming characteristics into an ideology they celebrate.
And evidence shows psychopaths are treatable(just not the way the American justice system does it), unlike the shitty pseudo-fascists we've developed lately.
Treatment is not a cure. And it is impossible to tell with a psychopath anyway. Best to just shoot them and be done with it. Kinetic energy is the only real cure. Treatment only builds a facade.
"The only way to win is not to play." When you talk of killing right wing propagandists and liars, you're playing their game. Their understanding of the world is that it's a big competition. They see everything through that lens. "Facts" are just another thing to fight over, and to them objective reality is less important than perception. Nuclear war? What a powerful way to eliminate a whole lotta competition, and there are frighteningly many people who are deluded about their own chances of surviving a nuclear war and would launch the nukes if they could. You know, just get in a lead lined fridge, duck and cover, clear the mothballs and cobwebs from Grandpa's old fallout shelter he built in 1962, and keep it stocked and ready.
It's a jungle out there, a dog eat dog world, so they claim, and you just identified yourself as a progressive, and proposed the elimination of a bunch of their dogs, through force, the ultimate tool of the maximal competitor. If you really are a progressive, and not a conservative provocateur plant masquerading as a progressive, you could hardly say a worse thing. Just hand them the very thing they need so they can say progressives are no different, and confirm their world view that there's no more to life than fighting.
We didn't fight our way to the top of the animal kingdom. We are the physically weakest of all the animals
What do you want me to say? That modern day conservatives aren't vile scum who take basically every part of modern society for granted while attempting to deny those same protections for everyone slightly different? That they're decent human beings, not gigantic lying hypocrites?
Because if I gave you that premise, your conclusion would be valid. But they're not. Sanity left the conservatives years ago. Human decency probably before that. Now there seems to be nothing left but people who will actively chase whatever gives them validation for the dumb shit they believe, no matter how nonsensical, destructive, and stupid it may be.
We are facing the apotheosis of a cult of tolerating intolerance.
The debate is not happening in the dark, it is happening on a big stage, and there are many, many undecided people watching what is said and done. The audience counts for much more than the idiots parroting the propaganda and lies. What you say and do should always be with the audience in mind. You can't show everyone that facts, truth, and science is ultimately stronger if you propose stooping to the level of those who are playing at being the messengers and minions of ignorance and force, lovers of guns, by reaching for the very tools and methods for which they profess respect. They may yet be persuaded to change their views, but not that way. If they see that they are at odds with most of the world, if they can be pried out of their bubbles and echo chambers far enough to see that for themselves, many will quietly switch, and all the more easily if they can do so without someone trying to embarrass them.
There is hope. Look how radically views have changed on homosexuality. In the 1990s, it was "don't ask, don't tell", and their marriages weren't allowed. What was the big deal, why were the social conservatives so opposed to gay marriage, how did it affect them? Well, it didn't, and they've now pretty much conceded that point. Race relations have been more in the news lately, but have improved despite perhaps a recent step back. Our first black president just finished his 2nd term peaceably. Video recordings, especially with smartphones, have blown the cover that racist cops used to be able to rely on to do their dirty deeds. Cops tried to ban video recording of them at work, and failed hugely. Now they have to have the cameras themselves! As for Climate Change, the denialists are making lots of noise, still enough of them to do that, but they're a laughingstock. The rest of us have been quietly moving to do things about the problem. City managers on the coast and farmers know it's happening and have been taking measures to deal with it. It would be better if we could have more international coordination sooner. Once again, as with gay marriage, idiots are opposing something because they were manipulated into it, not because they have a personal stake in it, rather the opposite. Another advance is on the War on Drugs, with marijuana legalization spreading across the nation.
So, chill out. Brietbart and Fox News and those ilk have little credibility outside their echo chambers, never did have much. Did you not find it hugely amusing when Rush Limbaugh had to reveal he was addicted to OxyContin? How about that slut shaming he tried on Sandra Fluke? He went too far, and is at last fading into obscurity, advertisers abandoning him. his show shunted to the least popular corners of the radio spectrum, or kicked off entirely. Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly ruined themselves with the way they treated women, kept doing it until they were finally exposed, then made it worse trying to handle it with bluster and coverups. The days of reckoning will come for other liars, and we can still afford to wait for it, still have leeway on our various problems.
And in the back of my mind all I could hear was "first they came for the liberals, but I did not speak up for I was a libertarian..."
There is a time for peace and tolerance, and there is a time to push back against encroaching fascism and prejudice. The popular tactic now is for conservatives to try and paint liberals as the evil things liberals don't like, it is sad and hypocritical.
Agreed. I'm a bleeding heart libertarian, and I spoke up a little when they came for the liberals. I only spoke up because I thought they could be reasoned with. They cannot. Reason won't reach them, because they're no longer seeking an intellectual dialogue. All they're doing is trolling, and lest we forget, "Don't feed the trolls."
I think it's funny how they think they're the only ones who own guns. At this point, I want them to go ahead and try to round up LGBTs and put us all in concentration camps. I'm a libertarian because I'm LGBT, and I think that libertarianism provides a practical framework that's fundamentally rooted in the messiness of the real world, including both the needed from time to time to defend loved ones and property from lethal force with lethal force and the aversion to resorting to such means.
"Come at me bro" is the only rational response to what conservatives have become. "Came at me bro" is just words after all.
I toss obviously slanted Breitbart links in the occasional story because we keep posting stories from 'Common Dreams' and other slanted sources."
I toss obviously slanted Breitbart links in the occasional story because we keep posting stories from 'Common Dreams' and other slanted sources."
Quit trying to be fair, you jerk!
You're either with them or against them, and liberals get bullet too(tm).
I'm not sure if that's trolling or if I'm being trolled.
I'm not sure if that's trolling or if I'm being trolled.
Ah, that explains it then! Conservative, low intelligence, unable to detect trolling or fake news, thus the Brietfart story submission. Carry on, BK, obviously not are not too stupid to live, so far. But some stupid decisions, like voting for Trump or supporting Hitler's ascension to Chancellor, often take some years to kill you.
Uh-uh, there we go again. Poland better start reinforcing it's borders.
Where is the line drawn?
I look at it like this. Fake news is any story in which false information is knowingly crafted by its author to convey and support bias. It can originate from a blog or a major news outlet. They purposefully start small, on blogs, or smaller alt/independent news sites and then propagate using social media in the hopes of a major news outlet picking up the story and passing it along as fact. Pizzagate is one example of fake news.
If the CNN story was not properly fact checked and the article was written in ignorance, then that's not fake news. Thats shitty reporting and almost as bad as fake news.
To me it seems a casualty of slashing newsrooms for a couple decades. Nobody does original reporting anymore because it is expensive. They pull "stories" off the AP Wire, from corporate press releases tailored for and fed to them, and from their Twitter feeds. They repackage that "material" for an optimal Pavlovian quotient, and call it news.
Along with it has gone the 'reporter as hero' archetype from popular entertainment. The mid-80's is the last time I think I saw such a film. The only media-related film I can recall seeing in the last decade were the Ron Burgundy spoofs, and they were more epitaph than laudatory.
Glen Greenwald and Julian Assange might have taken up Woodward's mantle, but they preferred to be divas.
Along with it has gone the 'reporter as hero' archetype from popular entertainment. The mid-80's is the last time I think I saw such a film.
Counterpoint: Supergirl and Daredevil both have this trope.
Supergirl debuted in 1959, Daredevil in 1964 (according to Wikipedia). They're products of a time when 'journalist as hero' was believable, so they're not really counterpoints but hold-overs in the same way that Superman's Clark Kent is or Spiderman's Peter Parker is.
Purposely ignoring the ones that are recent or still on the air or were you honestly unaware of them?Supergirl (2015): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4016454/ [imdb.com]Daredevil (2015): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3322312/ [imdb.com]
Unaware. And ignorant of the Supergirl and Daredevil histories. My knowledge of superheros is shallow and what little I do know is more about X-men than anything else. If 'journalist as hero' are recent additions to the storylines of Supergirl and Daredevil, then I stand corrected. If they've been there from their inception, then it seems like continuity from an earlier time when journalists were much more highly regarded than they are today, in the same way Clark Kent's and Peter Parker's characters are.
The archetype of fake news is joe blogger who reads some sensational headline somewhere that he gut-thinks is a "good story," does no research, and proceeds to post about it without actually bothering to do any research.
No. That's not fake news. That's shoddy journalism. There';s a difference.
Fake news is *deliberately false* information seeded into the information sphere to pollute public discourse. PizzaGate [wikipedia.org] was fake news, the CNN story was just crappy journalism, where those involved didn't follow their own standards. See the difference?
I'm sticking with this:https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=20269&page=1&cid=532147#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
What you believe is up to you. Good luck with that.
The problem with your definition is that it requires you to see into another mans heart and know what his intentions were.
You don't need to see in someone's heart to find out his intentions. If that were necessary, courts would be in deep trouble.
But yes, it means that sometimes you do not know whether a specific story was fake news or just bad journalism. But that's not a problem with definitions, that's just a fact of life. But if you are accuse someone or some organization of fake news without clear evidence of intent, you are not the slightest bit better than those bad journalists (and by your own standards, you would have to consider yourself generating fake news).
Pizzagate is one example of fake news.
Pizzagate is is just the Jeffrey Epstein story with a twist. The politicians are pervs of the worst kind. But because of the 'fake news' narrative, they will never be seriously investigated. Which is why the narrative was invented to begin with, to protect these kinds of people.
And, has Breitbart retracted the pizzagate story yet?
And, has Breitbart retracted the pizzagate story yet?
If you're suggesting that CNN and Breitbart are equivalent, I would tend to agree.
According to CNBC [cnbc.com] and many many others:
Time Warner's news division CNN has accepted the resignations of three journalists after the publication of a Russia-related article that was later retracted, a CNN rep said on Monday.The three journalists included Thomas Frank, the writer of the story; Eric Lichtblau, an editor in CNN's investigative unit; and Lex Haris, who oversaw the unit, the network had earlier reported.
Really, it's bigger than you think.
And do you know who Thomas Frank is, what he had done in the past, what his anonymous sources may be, and why he resigned when CNN was probably pressured to withdraw the story, much like another reputable journalist who was set up with a controversial news story on evidence that could be disputed?
There is a reason Brietbart is not a reliable source, even for the unreliability of other, actual news organizations.
When something significant happens that's international news you can get a good idea of what actually happened by comparing a bunch of news sites.
For things that are interesting and I want to know what happened I check my local West European news, RT, Al Jazeera, and try Asian or South-America/African sources.I also adopted the habit of checking RT once in a while to get news that just didn't appear in my local area. (e.g. the US downing a Syrian fighter jet recently)
In the beginning I thought Western news was pretty good and had little bias. But after a while I found out that's just not true. While RT spins more, they also usually run the story that isn't nice to Russia (although properly spinned) while the Western media, they simply don't run any story that they don't like. And for the vast majority that works a lot better, because their are not many people in the West that would consider looking for news elsewhere.
The biggest issue though, I distrust the media more and more, and I start noticing all the little omissions or suggestions.The best examples are when a group in their home region wants to break free from their government. They'll be called freedom-fighters, rebels, separatists or terrorists not depending on their methods or legitimacy but solely on their pro Western stance.
Alt-Right entryism has effectively killed this site. It was supposed to continue the traditions of Slashdot (which has itself become mainly a forum for arguments between 'libtards' and 'wingnuts') by providing somewhere nerdy and geeky to discuss tech-related news, instead it is just become an affiliate of /pol/. Sad!
Then submit more articles that are not politics related. If Soylent is not what you want, that is your fault. Of all of the options of places you could have gone, you chose here.
The mods don't have duty to post any old shit that gets submitted, though. The problem is that all this partisan politics stuff just puts people off the site, why bother trying to fight the tide here instead of looking for an alternative elsewhere. It isn't even about 'challenging views' because the base level of political discussion here is idiotic regardless of which tribe the commenters support - that's the real problem, the shitty political 'discourse' makes visiting the site a chore that isn't worth it anymore.
You say to submit other stories, but they just get hijacked by the same arguments and posters. Everything is turned political, and it isn't even nuanced politics just pure tribal aggression. As every other part of the internet seems to have devolved to the same standard then I think its just better to cut my losses and quit the site.
Trump trump trump trumpitty trump trump trump!
He's keeping his promises, why you triggered bro?
Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!
This is off-base. I submit a lot of articles to SN (2556, according to the Hall of Fame [soylentnews.org]). 95% of them are tech/science related. The other 5% are 'techonomics'/social science.
Some of them are substantive and excite nerdy discussion, but those don't come along often. Most articles cover incremental changes or findings or improvements. Many of them are composed by university/laboratory/institute press departments who nearly always try to sex things up. It's the way the world is.
Some of them are silly, and are submitted because they're silly and we can all have a nerdy chuckle.
If you're not happy with the selection and volume of tech/sci articles on the site, then submit some and/or suggest more sources beyond the usual like phys.org or arstechnica. If you don't like articles about politics, then switch them off in your account preferences. You can do that here.
What is not appreciated in a community-driven site like this, which has given you these options to improve your and our experience, is to complain and stamp your feet that the rest of us volunteers are not doing a good enough job to meet your high standards.
It's almost impossible to escape now that paid trolls are stirring shit all over the internet.
I too agree that Trump is doing gods work. If only the damned heathen liberals would see their evil ways.
I make no apology for being evil. Also, I may or may not be blind, you insensitive clod.
I know, I can't believe how much Trump is paying for 'correct the record' and 'shareblue' to spread fake news all over the internet, interrupt topics that are unrelated to push his agenda, and generally shit up the place.
I'm still waiting! I am sure that TMB could be bought for a couple thou, or some really good crappie fishing. Sad thing, if he had held out, he coulda got hisself some bass. Pretty sure of it.
It's really interesting to watch the progression. There used to be an army of guys making comments about OBUMMER! random places all over the internet. It wasn't clear if these guys were paid or not but I know they would argue bullshit with you all day until you suggested they were a paid troll and now that particular brand of shitposting has morphed and evolved to the more sophisticated shit we see today.This is what people were afraid the gutenberg press would do.
The consequence of going into politics..Which there are already a lot of sites doing just that and the level of discussion is aligned with that. Therefore it's a good idea to stay focused on nerd topics which political forums usually are horribly clueless about. And only let political stuff in when it directly affects the nerd stuff.
Politics tend too often be like arguing that another person has the wrong taste for colors or food. And self interests added on top of that. That is even without taking into account inability to grasp issues. It usually ends with he said, she said, he said, she said.. which is extremely unproductive.
sadly it's a sign of the times. if we had something exciting going on like the space race then we could all reliably talk about rockets and orbital mechanics all the time. instead we have systemic failure that rather undermines all productive scientific and technological undertakings.
i would much rather see a discourse develop that explores ways for tech/sci to disintermediate the systems of control that are bedeviling all of us, as some out in the world do, but it hasn't happened (yet).
By "systems of control" do you mean government and corporations control over individuals?
Yes, such that it goes beyond simple exchange to control and exploitation.
There are some obvious means by which societal control is exercised:
* Employer management style
* Media and every drone that regurgitate them
* Bank loans
* Eavesdropped infrastructure
If you read a book or get a great idea. There's no tax code for that. Think about that! ;-)
Anyway this is why homeschooling, economical off-grid, self employed etc. Is frowned upon. The big step is to think for yourself and ensure you are right and not letting others cloud your mind with doubt. Then you have all these people that parrots what they themselves heard but not spent any thinking on which will try to interfere with you in all kinds of ways. Too many because it's the right way (why?), because everybody else (so?), can't imagine (I can!) etc.
Employees and school control people very tight because by controlling employees time and money they get to decide what economic standard employees get to have, where they have to live (near work), where to spend time (with crap people), and what they will do during the day. The corporate culture gets to decide what people shall think.
That's well put.
The biggest challenge is not the physical mechanisms you listed, but the social constructs that surround them and the expectations they set. Wresting our world view away from the control of others is difficult because it goes against the deep socialization humans are hard-wired to do. "What's right?" "What's wrong?" "Well, what does everybody else think?" Isn't that how we know?
It is possible to wean ourselves off of those deleterious memes. First and foremost is practicing critical thinking. Never accept someone's say-so. Examine what we are told and what we see. It's hard to do at first, because it takes effort, but it is a lot like a muscle that gets stronger with use. With time we begin to see subterfuge and self-dealing that was invisible to us before, and we can act with clearer understanding.
Second is abandoning the sensation of intellectual comfort. If somebody is agreeing with us too much, it's because they want something and are manipulating us. There should always be a tension, even between people who largely agree; it's the only way to keep everyone honest.
Third is changing how we behave and what we devote our productive time to. You ticked off three of them, homeschooling, economic off-grid, self-employment, etc. In every way we can we should strive to be masters of our own fates and not subsume the best of ourselves to others. Controlling the patterns, the rules, by which we move throughout our days is the fundamental way in which the evil people of the world control and oppress the good (through corporate policy, fiscal management, etc); Good people are generally more interested in the red meat of honest work and real accomplishment to focus on the tedium and arcana of tax law (for example), so perhaps the best way is to not play their game at trying to game those rules, but to walk away at a right-angle as you have suggested. It was never possible for the people of East Germany to fix their system by working within it to reform its ground rules, but by literally walking away. That totalitarian police state, that prison, which was so intricately engineered to oppress its people, and which had stood unchallenged for decades, fell apart in a fortnight when the people simply voted with their feet. All of us have to do something equally simple and equally dramatic. Else, nothing changes, and nothing will ever get better.
The thing I would hope we can accomplish at SN is to extend that visceral comprehension of systems of control we know from open source vs. walled gardens, to the rest of society, because as much as systemd can subvert freedom in the OS, so do similar contructs of law and centralized control subvert freedom in the society in which we all live and work. I hope that we could take that same passion we can call upon for issues like systemd and use it to re-write the software of society, too. And who better? The entire world, every aspect of it, runs on technology and through technologists like us, so if we should resolve to change the society that runs on our systems we'd have a pretty darn good chance of seeing it happen. At least, it's a better way to spend our time than writing another talking cat app.
Replace "What's right?" "What's wrong?" with what are the consequences of the various choices. Most people are idiots. Following them can result in intelligent person behaving like an idiot.
Never accept someone's say-so is part of it. Critically thinking about ones own assumptions and thinking is perhaps even more important. There's usually a lot of crud there that may limit really free thinking right there.
If there's intellectual comfort, it usually means your are in safe space that has very little relation to realities. People can agree without wanting something or manipulating. It takes some experience and intellectual capability to get the difference. I don't think tension is a necessity. It's when deciding out of the presence of tension instead of facts the thinking goes awry.
Re-writing society is usually not resource efficient. Feet voting is. It can be as simple as starting a club etc just to have a space that is uncluttered, provided the screening is appropriate. The problem with most societies is people so to enable those that want to be free of the limitations of their peers is to enable new social networks. Sometimes that has to be physical like moving elsewhere but not always.
If I wanted people to confirm my biases, I would go to another site. There are plenty of them these days. And, I do from time to time. I come here in part to find out what people that disagree have to say in each others presence. I do not appreciate people trying to make every public person and site conform to their own biases. But, then again, I prefer to self improvement over delusions of righteousness.
That is idiotic. If I want to confirm by biases I'll go to particular sites, if I want to challenge them I will (and do) go to other ones. What I hate is that the whole internet is becoming an echo chamber for the same witless 'political' discussions that are essentially tribalism. I seriously doubt anyone has their opinions changed by anyone spouting the latest talking points and standard insults. Reasoned debate, in its correct place, would be great. What we have is deliberate attempts to subvert discussions and entire sites to try to normalize particular viewpoints. As I said at the start, there are plenty of places online to talk uninformed, opinionated crap about politics and society, but we are losing places where civil discussion can be had about other topics without the need to drag partisan politics into it. Go and look at some of the older (2000-2003ish) discussions on Slashdot and you'll see that the signal-to-noise ratio has completely flipped - pretty much everything is noise these days.
What I hate is anonymous cowards whining about the membership breakdown of a community.
Yeah! I agree! What Tangofoxtrot said!!
Paradoxically, I think anonymity is the purest definition of community. It is the complete removal of individual identity, with people left only to see a communal flow of discussion.
And personally I think people having their views praised or condemned on the merit of their views alone, as opposed to whom is holding said views, is the way society can make progress. Especially today when people are so quick to label one another (and themselves). People so often decide what to think based not on what is being said, but who is saying it. Anonymity removes this bias.
A good point. But a lot of the AC comments are people just coming here to insult us/the site, not offer any valued dialog.
But then again, I could point fingers at certain registered users around here whose only purpose in posting seems to be to insult other registered users...
Conversely, there are times when the messenger is the message.
No THAT is stupid AND idiotic you nose in the air elitist asshole. If I want a political echo chamber I'll just go to one of the many sites that exist. The real problem is that we let inbred invertebrates on to the net and now we're suffering the co sequences. If I want to reinforce my own world view I'll just pop down to the local church and see ask about the whole climate change thing. Bad actors are subverting our way of life, idiots who only want to spew their ignorance argue shitty points and post shit from breitbart. How about a more respectable tabloid for once? Heil Randler!! Free markets and competition because I Am Very Smart!
And, yet, here we are having this conversation.
I don't subscribe to the politics section. I suggest you do the same.
And? This was NOT in the Politics section, you insensitive clod!
The Alt-Right is killing the Internet. They've filled it with noisy nonsense and hatred. Years ago I met a very intelligent but paranoid Yugoslavian who refused to use the Internet. I thought it was just because he'd grown up in a dictatorship. He was about 20 years ahead of us.
This is "Unsubstantiated News" and is not worthy of being reported.
"Fabricated News" is news that is deliberately falsified.
"Biased News" is factually correct news that is framed in a particular way, which ranges from subtle to deliberate framing of a particular narrative.
I dislike the term "Fake News" because it is applied to all three of the above, often inappropriately.
Overall I find issue with the whole "Fake news" thing, I still have not found a good definition of it. There used to be "none" but now there is barely a day without it. It seems to overall just like definition, or at least one that everyone can agree with. So everyone involved just seems to label anything they don't like or that contradicts them as fake news stories. Trumps fake news isn't CNNs fake news isn't FOX fake news etc. Perhaps it's now even about the "news" in itself but that the publisher of said news has lost, and is somehow trying to regain, the narrative of the story or whatever opinion in large it is that they want to purvey.
Fake or fabricated news to me is still those magazines in the store with stories about celebrities alien love children, Elvis sightings and such things. That is fabricated "news". Which in turn is different from what CNN is peddling, or trying to, which is just agenda driven drivel disguised as news and if someone hadn't called them out on it they would never had retracted this, they tried to send it out there to see if someone would bite but they didn't so this was about to blow up in their face. The retraction was just, or became, preemptive damage control.
Fake or fabricated news to me is still those magazines in the store
Those are obvious examples to normal people, but there are political news stories that are entirely fabricated (1). Unsubstantiated news (such as this story or others: 2) is functionally equivalent to "fabricated news" because trust in journalism and the media in general is incredibly low.
People fall for these stories because they employ motivated reasoning, which will bias them to only be skeptical of stories that do not fit their beliefs.
Equating "biased news" with "fabricated" and "unsubstantiated" news dilutes the term "fake" and further entrenches people in their motivated reasoning (any story that I do not agree with must be fake).
1. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/17/purveyor_of_fake_news_says_he_targeted_trump_supporters_influenced_election.html [slate.com]2. https://www.theroot.com/report-donald-trump-hired-prostitutes-to-pee-in-beds-h-1791134341 [theroot.com]
The best definition of fake news that I've seen came in a presentation by Tom Nichols (cf. https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=19197&page=1&cid=500514#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] for details).
Fake news is a lie deliberately concocted from whole cloth, seeded out into the media-sphere through the Internet or the other willing minions out there, to pollute the public debate. Intentionally, knowingly a lie. it is not a bias story, It is not an erroneous story, It is not an error that can be retracted. It is not a story that was spun in a way you happen to not like. None of that is fake news. Fake news is an intentional lie, created to mislead people and then placed out into the information sphere so that you will find it.
Source: https://www.c-span.org/video/?426290-1/tom-nichols-discusses-death-expertise [c-span.org] (at approximately 1:27).
This is it:
created to mislead people and then placed out into the information sphere so that you will find it.
I think the original Fake News was some Romanian kids setting up a fake news site and filling it with outrageous (but fake) news stories, in order to get as many visitors (and thus ad impressions and clicks) as possible. It didn't have anything directly to do with influencing the public, just plain old profit.
Fake news is not [wikipedia.org] new [politico.com]. Nor is the use of it for commercial purposes.
Why is it that few seem to have even a fragile grasp of history [wikipedia.org] beyond five years ago?
Of course there has always been lies and propaganda fed to people around the world. But this time around, the term "fake news" (as opposed to agitprop or whatever) started to get used because of those romanian teens. Or do you seriously think Trump is referencing agitprop when shouting about "fake news"?
Or do you seriously think Trump is referencing agitprop when shouting about "fake news"?
Yes. As a matter of fact, I do. Demagogues have always loved to lambaste the press or anyone else they want to cow.
Read a few history books, friend. Trump is using an old and quite unsavory playbook.
Ok, fair enough. I myself think you are giving the guy way too much credit. I don't think he could even pronounce the word.
...and more often than not by Breitbart, who all but single-handedly invented fake news (#pizzagate) and then somehow managed to redefine it to their advantage (at least to the masses who've long since turned their brains off apparently).
I find #pizzagate especially disturbing. It was as though it was an actual turning point. When I looked into it, I found something on Reddit I think that basically sounded like timecube. I couldn't believe that people honestly believed it. People had started to take the internet seriously.
Breitbart, who all but single-handedly invented fake news
Decades ago I saw the predominant newspaper of one of America's top 100 cities routinely and shamelessly prints obvious and blatant lies. For example after an election that had (let's say) 45% for "A", 49% for "B", and 6% for the third-party candidate(s) they would simply discard what they didn't want you to know and declare that the vote was actually 48% "A" and 52% "B". This also sustained the illusion of majority rule by boosting "B" over 50%.
When challenged with actual numbers from the Elections department they would either ignore it or bury a retraction in fine print on page 93 behind the obituaries.
Now maybe that doesn't fit your finely-crafted definition of "fake news". No true Scotsman etc. But those in the "news" business have been lying, slanting, or spinning since forever because they like to tell themselves it is their place to decide what everyone else is supposed to think and do.
P.S. This is not intended to be a defense of Breitbart in any way.
I think most people here would agree that "Evidence shows moon landing faked." would be a headline worthy of the title of fake news. Yet what if they showed things [youtube.com] such as what appears to be the flag waving in wind after an astronaut runs by it? There are very viable reasons why this isn't what it seems to be. For instance, the astronaut might have actually touched the flag while hopping by it - or disturbed the ground around it somehow. But it could also be evidence of a faked scene.
It's not really 'fake' so much as unsubstantiated. You see, substantiation and verification is exactly what separates 'real news' from 'fake news'. What CNN published was indeed fake news. And given 3 people lost their jobs over this, it is likely that this is only a fragment of the story as CNN, among other companies, now regularly runs unsubstantiated stories which are later shown to be false. For instance they've also [cnn.com] had to apologize for posting staged photos/videos from Syria once it became 100% evident the media was faked. Other times they stage [youtube.com] "wonderful scenes" and simply ignore the footage [youtube.com] showing it was fake. CNN is absolutely fake news, and this is just yet another example of it.
The fact that anyone can claim with a straight face that that actually believe "fake news" means anything other than what you call "fabricated news" astounds me. Clearly the person coining the term didn't think about bad faith interpretations of it or would have been more careful in their wording. Trying to keep it short, perhaps "hoax news" would have been a clearer term, but the people calling CNN "fake news" are clearly not acting in good faith, so I doubt any attempts at better wording would have helped all that much.