Slashdot Mirror
Crowdsourced Volunteers Search For Solutions To Fake News (wired.co.uk)
Upworthy co-founder Eli Pariser is leading a group of online volunteers hunting for ways to respond to the spread of fake news. An anonymous reader quotes Wired UK:
Inside a Google Doc, volunteers are gathering ideas and approaches to get a grip on the untruthful news stories. It is part analysis, part brainstorming, with those involved being encouraged to read widely around the topic before contributing. "This is a massive endeavour but well worth it," they say...
At present, the group is coming up with a list of potential solutions and approaches. Possible methods the group is looking at include: more human editors, fingerprinting viral stories then training algorithms on confirmed fakes, domain checking, the blockchain, a reliability algorithm, sentiment analysis, a Wikipedia for news sources, and more.
The article also suggests this effort may one day spawn fake news-fighting tech startups.
At present, the group is coming up with a list of potential solutions and approaches. Possible methods the group is looking at include: more human editors, fingerprinting viral stories then training algorithms on confirmed fakes, domain checking, the blockchain, a reliability algorithm, sentiment analysis, a Wikipedia for news sources, and more.
The article also suggests this effort may one day spawn fake news-fighting tech startups.
So you are going to close down MSNBC and CNN as well?
https://theintercept.com/2016/...
Seeing as the Fake News idea is being promoted by people who won't even come out into the open.
In other words, the individuals behind this newly created group are publicly branding journalists and news outlets as tools of Russian propaganda – even calling on the FBI to investigate them for espionage – while cowardly hiding their own identities.
The credentials of this supposed group of experts are impossible to verify, as none is provided either by the Post or by the group itself. The Intercept contacted PropOrNot and asked numerous questions about about its team, but received only this reply: “We’re getting a lot of requests for comment and can get back to you today =) [smiley face emoticon].” The group added: “We’re over 30 people, organized into teams, and we cannot confirm or deny anyone’s involvement.”
And if you really want to stop fake news, you can ask questions. A good one to start with, is where is the proof that Russia did any of this ?
In 2013 Obama signed a bill which part of allows the use of propaganda in the USA legal again (made illegal in 1947). Which is why we have so much fake news now, media sources aren't required to fact check since that would expose the government backed fake news.
So how about we make this sort of shit illegal again?
Be seeing you...
I am all for the dealing with the scourge of BS news, however I think this will be more of a purge fake news that doesn't further my own political agenda and bias kind of initiative.
Problem solved. Every story will need to be fully cited.
Would this system flag fake news like the Michael Brown "Hands up, don't shoot" fake news that falsely claimed he had his hands up and was not charging at the police officer after already attacking him and attempting to take the officer's sidearm?
I have doubts that such a system will flag false/fake stories that nevertheless fit certain agendas and narratives.
I believe there's a lot of fake news about "fake news" in order to lay the groundwork for "officially-sanctioned news and facts" a la "MiniTruth", and systematic suppression of independent news sources that don't fit certain narratives and agendas. I think HRC's election loss and all the independent news sources that published/posted/outed inconvenient facts about her has scared TPTB, and they are now attempting to marginalize, discredit, and destroy those who publicize that which they prefer be kept from the public.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The internet is about finding news, sites, forums, chats, people, fun, enjoying social media or adding a comment.
If a user does not like a site, don't use it, dont return to it. Making it not easy to search for results or delisting terms won't change reality.
If the site is in the USA, having freedom of speech is protected. Having freedom after speech is protected from gov staff.
Freedom from a gov or mil, a political party or theocracy or cult is what sets the USA apart from the rest of the world.
If a company does or does not want to host material, find results or comments, thats ok too.
Just make it clear that your products or services are not going to get good results as teams have restricted all expected functionality.
Users then have the freedom to start their own sites or select from much better competing services that have embraced freedom.
Freedom does not go away after one company bans it. Freedom and fun then moves to better sites who support free speech.
If a brand wants to support SJW, governments, theocracies, cults, contractors and be a huge safe space thats their option.
In a free market of ideas and so many other great brands supporting freedom of speech to become a very boring brand is not really the best marketing position.
Censorship as branding might be great for some faiths or nations but freedom sells globally.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Fake news is a distraction. Trump lost the vote, democracy requires the winner get more votes, that was not Trump.
Now you can say, 'well he won the electoral college vote', but *that* vote has not happened yet. And Bush and Obama ethics lawyers have both, united, reminded the electoral college of the constitution. He cannot be President and continue to run businesses that's illegal. If he tries again to appoint his family to run America that too is illegal.
The states need to recount, Putin's hackers hacked the electoral roles of several states and that was done for a purpose. You can't register the vote using that data, but you can fake an absentee ballot vote. So all the states with suddenly large numbers of absentee ballots cast need to be re-examined.
Trump lost, get over it Putin.
Having groupthink decide what is true isn't any more helpful.
The interesting thing about all this fake news and propaganda, is there are actually two distinct types of propaganda. The first everyone knows about and that is the stuff propagandists target at majority, the regular marketing lies told for what ever purpose. The second kind of propaganda is entirely different, now that propaganda is actually targeted at the propagandists.
Propagandists are bound to react to what the perceive as their target audience reactions and especially careful to protect their lies whilst hiding the truth. This makes them very reactive, they are forced to listen in case they are being exposed, or they are not selling their lies. There are really powerful emotions at play, greed, fear of being exposed for the crimes, fear of no longer being able to hide who they really, with very serious consequences, not only losing the proceeds of their crime but extended custodial sentences. This makes them very vulnerable to propaganda targeted at them, they must react or fail and suffer severe penalties.
The reactive nature allows them to be manipulated into over reacting or reacting in the wrong manner and traps them into doing things like pushing into more and more extreme propaganda which becomes harder and harder to sell or propaganda that undermines their own propaganda or even propaganda that foolishly exposes more secrets than it should.
Fix fake news, I would say break up the big main stream media organisation but if hardly seems worth the effort any more, they have already been tricked into destroying themselves by over reacting and whoops they can't take it back now, just going to dig themselves deeper and deeper. Simply legislate 'News' as a licensed profession and those practising are bound by the truth, fail to prove the truth they claim in court, then they do the prison time. Now if you want to tell stories and do no claim to be a licensed news practitioner, then not a problem, do want you want as long as it is within the regular laws. Once you claim to be a licensed news professional than you expose yourself to criminal penalties for lying (this is something that main stream media organisations will oppose maybe 80% of the market, about 20% will support it because they report the truth and the News licence and there honour and integrity would see them with a worth while professions).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
So, will these methods also separate "fake news" from "not approved by globalist leftist agenda" news, or will it label both as fake?
Will they label "fake news" from "reputable sources" or do those automatically get a pass?
It used to be that you could trust news based on their source, but these days mainstream media is so hilariously biased and spreading outright fake stuff that drives the globalist agenda, it is impossible to tell just based on the source any more.
Any of our news is trustworthy...
"Fake news" is a social problem. And social problems, generally speaking, don't have technological solutions.
For example, all these suggestions for better and smarter algorithms to detect fake news. But why? It's not like fake news are hard to tell apart in general. Filter out anything that uses ALL CAPS anywhere in the title (acronyms excepted), and you've already solved 90% of the problem. And there are numerous guides already on the Internet that go over all these basics... the problem is that people who do read and spread those fake news don't believe that they're fake. And just because it's an algorithm in their browser or Facebook telling them that it's fake, they're not going to suddenly start believing it, regardless of how perfect it is. They'll just say, "Whoever implemented this is biased, and they're just trying to censor my trusted sources - fuck them", disable or ignore the feature (or switch to a product that doesn't have it - and there will be one if this becomes a thing; free market will always fill a niche), and move on.
So the real problem is, "How do you convince most people who currently believe that those news are real, that they're actually fake." And that is entirely a social problem, which tech cannot and will not solve.
Western media organizations are trying to demonize China and promote revolution and national disintegration as they hate seeing the country prosper...
...reminding state media of its responsibility to promote a "correct political direction"
China also needed to combat the distorted view the Western media...
Li called on mainstream Chinese media to refute "untruthful reports"...
July 5, 2016 - ‘Fake’ News From Social Media Now Banned in China
The use of social media as a source of news has become a fixture in the United States—scrolling Twitter feeds appear next to news anchors, and tips from Facebook regularly result in television coverage. But not in China.
The Chinese Communist Party has recently created a new regulation that describes information from social media as “fake news” and “rumors,” effectively banning its use as a source of information, lest serious consequences follow.
Jul 4, 2016 - China To Crack Down On Fake News From Social Media Amid Rumor-Mongering
The fact that "fake news" is such an issue this week is - fake news.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The thought police from 1984 called, they want their ideas back!
One problem is that much that is disputed is also time-sensitive, what is "fact" changes over time, sometimes because more "facts" become known, sometimes because they turn out to be false. You can try and check that something was factual _when_ it was published, but on the web publications can be trivially updated.
Take this: https://www.facebook.com/thein...
Lovely video on fact-checking, except that it doesn't fact-check itself, the google search shown in the video turns up loads of results that are reporting the story as news (and about an equal number reporting it as fake), the video claims a google search will not find the story, maybe it didn't when the video was made, but the video is _now_ demonstrably false itself.
At the end of the day whether you use Google, Snopes or Upworthy for fact checking, you are still trusting someone else to curate your news and therefore are subject to their biases and agendas.
truth & mercy = justice.. not always psychotronically stimulating like we hostages require.. in the moms we trust.. cease fire stand down..
Soros hates communists. That oldfart faggot is a fucking globalist nlgger cocksucker.
That's the solution!
Just read the National Enquirer and The Onion, to learn what fake news are.
If you read about a giant underwater crystal pyramid, found in the depths of the Bermuda triangle and you think this could be true, you are too stupid to vote.
She's the one who did the fake 'Clinton body count' video via her Ingraham Media Group.
Are you going to close her down? She's worth examining, because she fits a pattern:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham
"In July 2009 she adopted a 13-month-old boy, Michael Dmitri, and two years later in June 2011 she announced the adoption of her third child, 13-month-old Nikolai Peter. Both of the boys were from Russia, a nation where Ingraham has spent considerable time"
OK, so we have a claim there, and a source for that claim, so lets check that source.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/reliable-source/2009/07/love_etc_67.html
Well that certainly does appear to be her in Moscow.
Why on earth does she spend so much time in Russia that they would let her, a single woman, adopt Russian children?
Gee, why would she put so much effort into making fake media to get Trump elected? I cannot imagine a motive there, no sir.
There's only one solution to fake news, and that is for people to take interest in the world around them, to be informed about politics outside of the 3 final months of the US presidential race and to have enough information to be able to weigh the probability that a source is trustworthy and that a story is plausible. Implausible, sensational stories and stories from unknown sources have to be verified. Either do this, or be lazy, stay dumb, do not participate and let others decide how you'll live. An easy first step - don't get your news from facebook and twitter!
There are tools like Genius that allow web pages to be annotated beyond the control of the publisher (attaching comments to highlighted text), allowing lies to be challenged in-situ, before their sharing reaches critical mass.
But for this to make a difference, you'd have to ensure that the annotations are widely seen. An annotation system should come with the default install of web browsers (including the Facebook internal one), and if not enabled by default, the user should be asked whether they want it enabled.
But this wouldn't fix the problem of fake articles being popular simply because they tell people something shocking that panders to what they want to hear. Readers sometimes don't care about the truth. They want the entertainment, smugness, and social bonding of an interesting and validating lie. The National Enquirer problem. So it's acceptable if annotations just damp the problem down, rather than eliminate it.
>The article also suggests this effort may one day spawn fake news-fighting tech startups.
I love it! Fake tech startups that fight news! How do I get in on the ground floor? Fund me! Oooh ooh! Fund me!
What's even scarier than fake news is when news is blacked out. Fake news is not something one would never expect, even if we did not live in a society in which the mainstream media is controlled to an extremely high degree.
I remember at least a couple major incidents of GMO contamination which literally made headlines across the rest of the world and which were almost completely blacked out of all US media. When you witness this kind of blanket blackout a few times you realize just how extensively MSM is controlled.
Also on the issue of fake news - someone should go back to 2003 and investigate the "repenting shield" fake news stories just before the US started bombing Iraq.
Isn't this what reddit is for?
To the left, "fake news" is a smear given to anything that doesn't fit their narrative.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
How to differentiate between 'fake news removal' and 'plain cencorship'?
Who is going to decide what is fake and what isn't?
Heck, even the "president elect" of the United States claims that global warming is 'an opinion'.
So just because the Yankees elected a stupid baffoon as president, they other side is going to censor the entire Internet?
Sounds worse than the 'great chinese firewall' to me!
we fuckin teach people how to THINK FOR THEMSELVES! Holy shit this problem would stop being a problem if people just stopped taking a single source as gospel! You read around, you find all the stories are:
vague on sources
repeating each other almost exactly with no new details or information coming out of different outlets
using classical misinformation techniques including those vague sources such as "a study published today" with no links
This is how you stop the problem of "fake news", cause the problem is actually lazy people wanting to be spoonfed information so they can go back to playing on twitter and facebook while texting about how much it suuuuuuuucks that Obama and Hillary had a lovechild out of wedlock and Trump paid for the abortion while repealing Obamacare and putting a KKK member in charge of Immigration whose first act is gonna be to remove all the muslims from the bible belt and ship them to California or something.
Apparently, we're actually so eager and willing to be bullshitted that we can't even call them "lies" any more. No, we need a term to distance ourselves from the fact, so "fake news" it is. After all, we can't have our media outlets LYING to us, now can we? That wouldn't be the American way! No, we just have a little "fake news" problem, that's all.
Oh, they mean the MSM is losing control because most people don't believe their endless LIES any more, so they are now attempting to (yet again) tell us all how stupid we are, and that non-MSM websites are reporting "fake" news - i.e. anything the JEW doesn't want you to hear.
The nice thing about having a free press is that they can report just how it is and needn't toe the party line. Unfortunately people equated "can tell the truth" with "do tell the truth".
You can actually see that very well in the development of the former East Bloc. Back in the day of the Iron Curtain, the people in the former East Bloc were pretty good at spotting bullshit news. Why? They knew that most of what they read, hear and see as news IS bullshit. And yes, that ability deteriorated quickly after their media became "free".
The problem is that the same still applies. Most of what is reported as news is bullshit. Fake. Blended with opinion (to the point of being more opinion than information). At the very least distorted by omission. But people never learned to notice that. Because they were used to having "free" media, and they trusted them for the reasons mentioned above: They equated "can say the truth" with "do say the truth".
This has to change. "Filtering" fake news at some higher level will not work. Because the fakers will just cry censorship and find enough idiots to fight their fight. You need an informed population that is able and willing to invest the time necessary to tell fake from real themselves.
And no, I don't think either that this is possible. At best you can do it for yourself and at least keep yourself from falling for the next news item that belongs into Weekly World News rather than some reputable news outlet.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Has nobody proposed just doing good journalism to confirm or refute the suspect stories? Get the source material firsthand and make it available for all to see. Mike Cernovich and GotNews have been doing this.
Even if you set aside the ridiculously biased surveys intended to create a bandwagon effect ("HIllary Clinton has a 92% chance of winning the presidency"), no one should ignore the unending "fake news" that are Federal Reserve economic predictions, BLS employment statistics or the always hilarious "Consumer Sentiment" metrics. And then of course there's the "War Channel" that is CNN. Anyone find those weapons of mass destruction yet?
Eh. It's not like many of them post stories saying that Trump and Putin had a sex scandal or that Trump dropped a baby and gave it a brain injury.
If you were to replace your beginning with "to everyone," you'd be a good deal closer to reality. I just wish more people would value video/audio evidence.
It is rare that an early internet meme is perfectly applicable. Yet here we are. And still no one has posted the obvious.... so here it goes:
They are proposing a massive system to become the final arbiter of truth.
What could possibly go wrong?
More nonsense from the us democrats and their international ilk. First carbon tax (a default poll tax) - now an insidious counter-the-hearsay movement with "fact checking". The problem is for the "liberal", errr I mean "progressive" outlets is they've become irrelevant. I mean really.. who the hell watches TV, and other government-corporate managed conduits of information. They had a decent run of almost 50 years. Now it's over.
Fake news is announcing intentionally something which never happened with the intent of hoaxing the reader. Do you confuse bad-quality-news which do not go for your narrative, with fake news. Fake news would be that the policeman killing brown was a KKK honcho for the region. That's fake with the intention of hoaxing the person.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Careful so you don't end up with censorship tools.
I would NOT want to see some important article I am posting somewhere, to get flagged out of existence, because it gets down voted to hell.
To the alt-right, fake news is the excuse for ignoring anything that contradicts their narrative.
In fact, it's the foundation if their fantasy world.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Not to rain on your enthusiastic parade, but this is essentially the same problem to solve as phishing. Good luck SJWs.
He who controls the truth controls history, or some other pretentious bullshit quote.
These people want to rewrite history in realtime so that you have no evidence to the contrary of their oppressive, selective lies.
Special snowflakes should be put down.
This is not about news, fake or not. Its about control and perception of being in control over opinions that pubbies might have.
at the sametime, google is also figuring out how to preserve their fake news and spam bots. anything to save hillary.
A: More early education that encourages logic and critical thinking
A that they will arrive at: More censorship.
Is going to be here soon. IPFS, ZeroNet, Maidsafe, plus decentralized DNS through Namecoin is going to take hold and these people won't be able to censor anything. Everyone needs to be playing with these technologies right now. They are going to try and silence us and retake control of your information stream.
This has to be some kind of record.
People don't wanna think, they want someone to tell me what to think and this is absolute proof of how lazy everyone has gotten now.
And to show they don't want to think, they can't even imagine the consequences of demanding someone censor the news for them.
This "fake news" narrative is bollocks. People seek out news and information that confirms their preexisting prejudices. If people are believing "fake news" it's an issue for the education system to deal with - i.e. stop pumping out unthinking drones lacking in a broad general knowledge. Algorithms and people tagging stories as fake is extremely sinister.
Isn't that the thing journalists (should) do?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist
http://www.stopfake.org/en/new...
It is not even clear to me what 'fake' news is: not genuine? A counterfeit? A copy? For that is what we mean by the word. Be careful what you wish for; for who could verify political 'genuineness' other than politicians? Perhaps we are thinking of 'it is fiction'. As opposed to 'facts'. But is it? Are the stories 'fiction'? Well, I read fiction every day and, guess what, I know it is fiction by the very content. Perhaps it is 'false', as opposed to 'true'? How could we verify that? And you are, of course, allowed to define truth as you wish. But are you really prepared to allow news outlets, political parties and FaceBook to define this? This would be a new definition of truth, and, of course, a novel use of 'genuine' news. Rather, most parts of our lives are not dominated by these politically and metaphysically loaded concepts. Do not give them up, but put them in their right place. Replace Psychology below with anything you wish: The confusion and barrenness of psychology is not to be explained by calling it a "young science"; its state is not comparable with that of physics, for instance, in its beginnings. (Rather with that of certain branches of mathematics. Set theory.) For in psychology there are experimental methods and conceptual confusion. (As in the other case, conceptual confusion and methods of proof.) The existence of the experimental method makes us think we have the means of solving the problems which trouble us; though problem and method pass one another by. An investigation is possible in connexion with mathematics which is entirely analogous to our investigation of psychology. It is just as little a mathematical investigation as the other is a psychological one. It will not contain calculations, so it is not for example logistic. It might deserve the name of an investigation of the 'foundations of mathematics'.
To the left, "fake news" is a smear given to anything that doesn't fit their narrative.
This isn't a left/right thing. This is a powerful/commoner thing. This is the beginning of a censorship campaign.
Many of the fake news stories cited legitimate sources but rewrote the story to make it inflammatory. The Grubhub letter to employees where the ceo indicates that those subscribing to "Trumps" values of hate, prejudice, etc. wouldn't be happy at Grubhub and should leave was re-written to suggest that the CEO was telling Trump supporters to resign.
Subtle differences in context designed to anger. Unless one reads the original story and original quote/letter in context, no one would spot the difference.
Like taking one sentence of a paragraph and using only that as a quote without showing the rest that may counter or change the meaning.
And to the right, fake news is the current MSM. What's the difference?
I would say bringing back journalistic integrity and not provide opinions would be a good start.
'in fact' ? Whose facts are those? And if you think there are only one set of facts that someone are true for all, well, you are a bad observer of the world.
> There's only one solution to fake news, and that is for people to take interest in the world around them,
And yet, we could do a whole lot better at giving people tools that help them accomplish that. Helping people be more effective at whatever they need to do is the entire reason we have computers and the internet.
It is not fake news, it is deceiving advertisements.
Acknowledge that, and you are already 50% underway to a solution.
Hints. websites should clearly mark advertisements as what they are, advertisements. Websites should punish advertisement networks that serve bad ads (fake news, virus or otherwise). Don't deal with those, value their ads lower than those of other networks.
Advertising networks should punish bad advertisers. Do not accept their ads. Blacklist them.
And of course, users should all run add-block software.
That's my real fear with this - that people are buying in to the idea that "fake news" is a problem that needs a new layer to fix, instead of looking at traditional news outlets and wondering why they are so untrusted in the first place. It seems to me that if the traditional sources had kept up on journalistic integrity we wouldn't be talking about how to invent another layer of This-is-real-news-this-time-we-mean-it.
Let's put it another way. Journalistic integrity went out the window because there is money in giving lies the appearance of truth. So once there are new "trusted" fact-checker organizations, they too will experience the pull of money to skew their "facts" to fit backers desires. It's turtles all the way down.
Will be more difficult than stopping spam.
Any solution will result in litigation with claims of discrimination or rights voilatiions
Rick B.
unless you're going to mandate it (e.g. by compulsory voting). You massively underestimate just how little time people have. Most have 2 jobs (or work equivalent hours) and multiple children.
A better (though longer term) solution would be to pump up the liberal arts in college. It's the only chance people have to learn critical thinking. That's 'learn critical thinking', not 'be genetically predisposed to it'. When it comes to the sciences all but a handful of geniuses are just memorizing things. That's not going to change, there just aren't enough humans wired that way. That's where the liberal arts comes in. It's the one place where just about anyone can be taught that there's deeper meaning to something they're reading or watching. It's a place where the truly awful history of mankind can be taught too. Ever notice how the rich make sure _their_ kids have a well rounded education? Ever ask yourself why?
Of course, _nobody_ likes paying the liberal arts. After all, how ya gonna pay bills with a philosophy degree, amiright?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Those facts? They're the ones WAPO is pushing. You know, the fact that news aggregators like Drudge are now "fake news" in their eyes. Or wikileaks is "fake news." This bullshit is getting bad enough that even left-wing journalists are calling the entire thing bullshit, and for good reason. Where does it get good? Well just dig a bit, though the ASN is still pointing at google.
Om, nomnomnom...
The most obvious solution is to scan the domain registration date. Most "fake" news sites are created to spoof the likes of CNN by literately scraping the page and changing just the one news item to highlight things. The actual site is not really functional. So trying to search the site for news older than it's registration date will likely fail, and thus it's rubbish.
Sites of actual newspaper sites (except HuffPo) will have archives that pre-date the internet. Those articles may not actually be online, (eg a subscription may be required) or the site layout has changed, thus rendering the permalinks not functional.
But more to the point a lot of community papers use the exact same software. Locally all the papers in the province use the exact same software, so they all look identical, but the way to discover which news is fake is that they syndicate the same news in most of the local papers, where as a fake news item will NOT show up in any local paper at all. The likes of the Associated Press and Reuters tend to have syndicated articles in all legitimate papers, while fake news items (even if attributed to AP) will not show up on AP's website, or other AP syndicated news sites.
So the easiest way to fight fake news is in fact to use the tools that already exist (eg the DMCA) to take down websites showing trademarks that the fake news site clearly has no permission to use (eg CNN, NBC, FOX NEWS, etc), and to remove scraped articles.
Yes, we on the left know that the right prefers their own 'facts', we are generally pretty good observers of the world.
Very relevant fact: the people peddling invented news are targeting the right because in their experience the left is not fooled.
Give up on this "alt-right" bullshit. It does not exist. That term is just the latest attempt to smear conservatives with the typical bullshit ad hominem garbage "racist, sexist, homophobic, etc etc". Racist dirtbags existed before and, sadly, will continue to exist. Nazi-types are not right-wing. Funny how leftists love to push that though. National Socialism is a leftist ideology.
You folks also were against freeing the slaves and ran the KKK as your political enforcement arm but you've been disturbingly successful at convincing the bulk of this low-information nation that those were right-wing endeavors. Congrats??
To the left, "fake news" is a smear given to anything that doesn't fit their narrative.
I have noticed that the things that alt right nutjobs screech most loudly that "the left" do seem to be much more common among those same nutjobs than among the left. It's almost as if you believe that by yelling and screaming louder than anyone you can alter reality.
Also, about 99.6% of the time "narrative" appears in a post that's not about fiction, it's an indication that the person using it is an idiot.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
No, I think journalistic integrity went out the window because there's been such a strong push by newspaper publishers to force their journalists to engage with their readers on social media to the point that journalists don't have the time to do good reporting on anything.
More they'll see that people will go everywhere else for their news. You've got to be first to be read and to not be read is to see no ad money. But, yea, turtles all the way down.
After the defeat of mainstream media in the election, there's suddenly an onslaught of fake news campaign. Coincidence?
The alt-right at least is not trying to control what information people can see. You can add this "fake news" to the enormous and growing list of evil done by the ctrl-left. The ctrl-left are dangerous. The pattern has been established that they are amoral and go well beyond what people with ethics would stop at to achieve their ends.
The New York Times held regular meetings to discuss the "narrative" and to decide what news would support it, or how to spin news that didn't. Many news outlets coordinated news releases for political purposes on the Journo-list email discussion group. The Clinton campaign had high-ranking representives in every news service except Fox that were "reliable surrogates" that could be used to deliver the same, pre-determined, message - a 'narrative', if you will.
There is plenty of evidence of news companies cooperating to deliver a message with a consistent, non-neutral, tone.
The "fake news" they want to get rid of is the source of real unbiased information, that f.ex. lets people know about all the wrongs that are done in the Middle East by the U.S. and cronies. This is not a war against "fake news", it's a war against the few brave people that try to educate and inform an increasingly dumbed down population.
To whatever degree that fake news was successful, its success was a result of traditional news sources being unreliable. If the Washington Post, the New York Times, et al had not completely committed themselves to getting Hillary elected, no matter what lies they needed to tell to do so, people would have been able to spot the fake news. Unfortunately, "real news" no more reflected the facts than "fake news".
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You should look up that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
Also words like "story", "fable", "imagined", "prose", "satire", "novel"...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
To the left, "fake news" is a smear given to anything that doesn't fit their narrative.
How did this get modded +4 Insightful?
Slashdot's been flawed for years, but this up-modding of obvious trolls seems to be new.
And this whole left versus right bullshit is getting quite old.
First, you talk in dehumanizing language and perjoratives about your enemy. Second, your response about what "alt right nutjobs screech" about is in context of the far greater evil of the Left trying to suppress information. Third, claiming "the Right is worse" ignores all the proven other greater evils recently uncovered by O'Keefe and various e-mail leaks, etc.
Summary: you are blindly biased, and you even set out to offensively defend your team even in context of their awful actions. You seem too far entrenched to be able to change.
They warn that Trump will contest the election results if he loses; they are the ones calling for a recount.
They warn that Trump will censor the news; they are the ones that want to prevent "fake" news through human and algorithmic intervention
I had never heard the term "Fake News" used in this particular context before about two weeks ago. Now there are dozens of new stories every day. Who is driving this agenda? I don't believe "PropOrNot" started this whole thing. Somebody is bankrolling this entire effort and we should all be worried.
"Fake News" has been around since the beginning of time, the main difference now is you can actually check any story in seconds with a few clicks of the mouse. In 1000 BC when a wild rumor about your neighbor sacrificing children to Baal, the only fact check you could do was with your own eyes. In 1800 if some political flier was nailed to the wall accusing a politician of taking bribes, one had little means to cross-check. Fake News is LESS of an issue today than ever in human history.
"I have doubts that such a system will flag false/fake stories that nevertheless fit certain agendas and narratives."
What was it the Tiananmen Square Massacre monument has etched in stone- "In June 1989, nothing important happened here"?
Welcome to the New World Order. This 'fake news' brouhaha is as you say- like the world powers looking at each other and realizing they are now looking in a mirror.
They justified keeping home internet serving from us out of fears of trademark infringing phishing. Then Google, Facebook, and New York Times ad networks raked in the dough paying the phishers^Hpropagandists and labeling their fraud 'sponsored news'.
Is the mass media responsible for fabricating stories and inciting riots? Seems to me the media routinely fans the flames of racial division by releasing false information.
Remember the Charlotte riots? The media first reported that Keith Scott was unarmed. This was a major factor that led to the riots. Turns out, Keith Scott was armed. Is this a case of media fabrications causing riots?
In the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown, the media first reported that Brown was on his knees with his hands up. Turns out, that was another media fabrication which also led to riots.
In the Ahmed Mohamed clock incident, the media first reported that Ahmed was just building a clock, as a project for his electronics class, but the principal called the police because Ahmed was a Muslim. Turns out, that was another media fabrication. Ahmed used a clock that he bought at a department store, along with a briefcase and other props, to make a fake bomb. In a post-Columbine world, what should the principal have done? What if it had been a bomb? BTW: although he was richly rewarded for this stunt, Ahmed has been posting extremely anti-American rants: he called the 9/11 attacks self defense, he supports BLM, and much more.
When George Michael Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin, the media first posted photos of an 11 year old Trayvon. Months after the incident, some people still believed that Zimmerman attacked a small child, which was not the case. Trayvon was an athletic 5'11" and 160 lbs. and was beating the snot out of Zimmerman. Maybe Zimmerman was not justified in shooting Trayvon, but Trayvon was not an 11 year child, and the media tried to insinuate.
Ok, both parties are complicit, happy?
The last signature is the president. The buck stops there.
... "Real News"?
Fake according to whose narrative?
Fake on what grounds?
Incorrect facts?
Incorrect conclusions?
Lack of journalistic integrity?
One sided, or nonobjective?
There are multiple examples of all of these from every one of our main stream media services.
The problem I have with this is that the true objective is to filter news, that will basically result in censorship.
What we have right now is one side that is very well organized and funded, running a very large propaganda and phsycological operation on the American public. The only problem being encountered by them, is that some news doesn't fit their narrative.
It's pretext for controlling what you see.
Both sides are control freaks, whataboutism is BS!
Confirm any 'news' you read with a trusted friend in the area.
I live near Portland and recently seen the following article, and asked a long time friend it's true:
https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
When I hear back, I will know if it's trustworthy or not.
Problem solved.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Exactly. To the left, Fox News, Breitbart and Rush Limbaugh are "fake news". To the right MSNBC, Daily Kos, HuffPo and "the Daily Show" are "fake news". Do you see the problem with any attempt to regulate "fake news" now? And stop bringing up absurd examples like the story about Hillary running a child brothel out of a pizzeria. I doubt if many had ever heard that story before the "fake news" drum started beating and even fewer believed it.
For all these anti-freedom lefties and righties, "Fake news" merely means "News I don't agree with." May they all die a horrible death.
But what can they do??!! The only way for a person to avoid lies is to be informed and sceptical. How can you have a consumerist economy with such public? Let them be dumb, its better for Facebook and all
There is a difference between censorship and accountability. The intentional act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth is already a well documented crime. There is a reason society has determined this to be necessary -- it is harmful to civil society. As proscriptions against slander and liable have emerged over time to address wrongs in society, we need a new element in the law that combats intentional, harmful, or negligent deceit.
We must confront the reality that the intentional or negligent act of creating or advancing untruth (and/or selective truth) in the guise of reporting whole truth is also harmful to civil society.
Fake news is a sticky hairball that transforms even the most intelligent, well-intentioned people into deceitful reprobates. Fake news is short term individual gain at the expense of long term social pain. Every untruth that is contrived and/or propagated diminishes us as a whole. The sooner we (collectively) reach a tipping point of understanding that untruth in all its forms is a net negative, the sooner we can stop bitching about specific rotten trees and start practicing good forestry.
Of what kind of society do we wish to be a part?
I believe that fake news is a crime against civilization and society. I believe those who use fake news to harm individuals, groups, or society as a whole should be punished and/or rehabilitated.
Let us be clear... This is not an American problem nor a Russian problem nor a Chinese problem nor an Indian problem. This is not a Christian problem nor a Muslim problem nor a Jewish problem nor a problem of non-Abrahamic systems of faith or practice. This is not a Liberal problem nor a Conservative problem nor a problem for the rich or poor. This is not a problem for academics, laborers, financiers nor hard working house-spouses. This is a problem for all humanity... it is a test of our humanity.
We as global citizens must demand better in a global information age, lest we suffer the consequences of our unwillingness to stand up against a tyranny of deceit. We must demand better from the Platonian Philosopher Kings that reign over technology and media and, if necessary, hold them accountable as purveyors of deceit. We are living Toffler's FutureShock. We must be as determined to die for the truth that we find discomforting as we are that which comforts us -- because deceit is the mothers milk of tyranny and suffering -- because the fight for truth is noble, righteous, and just.
Perhaps some cultures may need to cut out the tongues of those convicted of speaking falsehood. Perhaps some cultures need to cut off fingers and hands of those convicted of writing falsehoods. For my culture, the sooner we can try and punish criminal deceit and litigate tortious deceit for compensatory and punitive damages -- the sooner we will rediscover news with integrity and journalism that uplifts society. Any crime against society must be met with a level of barbarity such that none in that society dare transgress. We stop being civilized if we abdicate truth.
Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami. (pali)