Slashdot Mirror


Bill Clinton Suggests Internet Fact Agency

eldavojohn writes "Friday on CNBC, Bill Clinton gave an interview that is causing some unrest on popular news sites today. When asked if there is a role for government in terms of ensuring that the information out there is accurate, he replied, 'Well, I think it would be a legitimate thing to do. ... If the government were involved, I think you'd have to do two things ... I think number one, you'd have to be totally transparent about where the money came from. And number two, you would have to make it independent. ... let's say the US did it; it would have to be an independent federal agency that no president could countermand or anything else because people wouldn't think you were just censoring the news and giving a different falsehood out. That is, it would be like, I don't know, National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors. And also, they would also have to have citations so that they could be checked in case they made a mistake.' His statements have elicited responses ranging from a Ministry of Truth a la 1984 to discussion of genuine concern about internet rumors and falsehoods."

14 of 336 comments (clear)

  1. FANTASTIC idea! by Dr.Bob,DC · · Score: 5, Funny


    This is a superb idea, the internet is so full of half-truths and outright lies it makes my head spin.

    A prime example was the flood of pro-vaccine nonsense that was obviously spread by Big Pharma soon after Dr. Andrew Wakefield's brilliant research into vaccine-caused autism was all but shredded. Alternative medicine caregivers (homeopaths, chiropractors, naturopaths, accupuncurists, among others) have all been treating vaccine induced autism. WE'RE IN THE FRONT LINES! But some well placed lies soon spread as truth.

    How about another? The LIES that Chiropractic neck manipulation can cause strokes. How do they know? They don't! This LIE was conceived by BIG PHARMA. They sell all the OtC pain remedies to unsuspecting sheep. Neck (Cervical) manipulation has cured MILLIONS of people of chronic headaches, migraine, sinus blockages and other maladies that BIG PHARMA sells you drugs for.

    Sorry if this comes across as a rant, I'm only allowed to post two times a day. This is because of the BIG PHARMA drug pushers who constantly vote me down rather than have a proper, adult discussion with me.

    The sooner they get someone in power who can regulate the internet, not some fancy 'scientist', but a true medial professional, the better.

    Take care,
    Bob

    --
    Chiropractic Saves Lives!
    1. Re:FANTASTIC idea! by RapmasterT · · Score: 4, Informative

      *golf clap*

      Brilliant first post, Utterly brilliant.

      Uh...I think you missed the point of that post. He's not engaging in brilliant and cutting satire...he's nutjob, tinfoil hat serious. Check out his post history, it's all the same paranoid conspiracy, anti-big pharma, anti vax nonsense.

      The fact that it's indistinguishable from hilarious satire tells us something about the value of context...yikes.

  2. Just a rumor by kenholm3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bill Clinton didn't say this.

    --
    God is good all the time! -K
  3. Re:Bring Back The Fairness Doctorine by CannonballHead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced.

    Translation: the federal government/current administration has to approve of the way you handle controversial views. What could possibly go wrong?

    I would have thought that radio broadcasting would have somewhat similar rights to the freedom of the press. The "Fairness Doctrine" seems to challenge that idea.

  4. Waste, Again by omb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Quite apart from all the other good reasons why this is a BAD idea, it is another way to wase money a broke country dosn't have.

    1. Re:Waste, Again by bfields · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Quite apart from all the other good reasons why this is a BAD idea, it is another way to wase money a broke country dosn't have.

      First, the US is very far from broke. We have a huge national income, and (relative to our peers) choose to spend relatively little of it on taxes. We could in theory go "broke" if we fail to raise revenues to cover growing health care costs and/or cut benefits to our aging population. Nobody (least of all the people putting their money where there mouths are and buying US debt) seems to think it's likely that we'll do neither, and thus default.

      Second, the proposal in question would require a trivial amount of money; factcheck.org and polifact.com, for example, already do this kind of work. I wonder what their budgets are--probably 6 or 7 figures? A government with a 13-figure budget could do contribute significantly to that kind of work with money that would amount to a rounding error. BBC news appears to be around 8 figures, for a complete news organization with international coverage.

      Third, this hardly strikes me as a "waste". If we could better educate our voters with such a tiny fraction of our budget, that sounds like spending that could pay for itself.

  5. Re:wikipedia by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wikipedia? Seriously?

    Given that much of Wikipedia is dominated by cliques of editors whose main preoccupation is to keep out competing edits (no matter how sensible those edits may be), and given there's a big difference between neutrality and objectivity, I hardly think Wikipedia is a good example of what Clinton is talking about.

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
  6. Flamebait all around by guspasho · · Score: 5, Informative

    This whole story is flamebait. Clinton didn't make the suggestion, the interviewer did, and asked him to speculate on it. He isn't actually advocating for a ministry of truth, nor is he even in government anymore.

    1. Re:Flamebait all around by guspasho · · Score: 4, Informative

      Same poster as above. As a for example, why is no one complaining that the CEO of AGT is railing against anonymity? He is blatantly, but that's also taking his words out of context, and you know, he isn't Bill Clinton.

      The summary also conveniently left this out, "But if it's a government agency in a traditional sense, it would have no credibility whatever"

  7. Re:wikipedia by bunratty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have yet to see that Wikipedia. I go to the one with people collaborating on making articles better. Yes, occasionally a jerk comes along and tries to push a particular point of view, but they generally come to their senses quickly or just go away, often after being blocked from editing.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  8. Are we takling about .... by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... snopes.gov?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  9. I'm a left winger by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Informative

    and it's got nothing to do with ideology. It's all about practicality. Corporations have massive economic power. So much so that nothing else can stand against that power except the government. Nothing. This is not a false dichotomy, at least as far as I know. I don't know any other way to keep something as massive as a modern global corporation in check.

    You can't just say the free market will sort it out, because the same people running one corporation are on the board of directors of the others. You can't stop buying from them and hope that'll keep them in check, because you'll have to buy from a "competitor" and that competitor is owned, through the stock market, by the same people. They're completely pervasive in our economy. In short, they're our ruling class, and we need government to replacement.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  10. Re:wikipedia by ArundelCastle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have yet to see that Wikipedia. I go to the one with people collaborating on making articles better. Yes, occasionally a jerk comes along and tries to push a particular point of view, but they generally come to their senses quickly or just go away, often after being blocked from editing.

    Purely in the name of sober second thought, you might want to consider - just for a moment - that you're already on the clique side looking out. I'm certainly not saying you are, but I think it is valid advice to anyone that says they don't see a particular societal problem, to also look in the mirror.

  11. Dr Bob is not serious by Snarky+McButtface · · Score: 4, Informative

    He is a really good troll. Here are some quotes from previous posts:

    "...the more syllables in a chemical name, the more dangerous they are"

    "Earth used to be a nice, hospitable place until the invention of radioactivity."

    "I'm not sure how Chiropractors could detect subluxations in a robot..."

    "Chiropractic maintenance alignments and adjustments scored better on IQ tests."

    Chiropractors are quacks but they are educated.