tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post8999484826492372575..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: What to Do About Fake NewsGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-80836145471887019992017-01-11T05:49:51.403-06:002017-01-11T05:49:51.403-06:00Dinwar,
Ah. I see your point, which is similar to...Dinwar,<br /><br />Ah. I see your point, which is similar to one I recall <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/19/fake-news-legacy-media-shaking-facebook/" rel="nofollow">Robert Tracinski</a> make. That could potentially make it quite hard to hear underreported news or alternative takes on propaganda (or outright phoniness) pushed by major outlets, but it would not be impossible.<br /><br />GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-33111963925914876412017-01-10T13:58:41.731-06:002017-01-10T13:58:41.731-06:00I quite strongly disagree, but I think a big reaso...I quite strongly disagree, but I think a big reason is that I used the wrong term. Having a site like Snopes (or Consumer Reports) that's dedicated to sifting fact from fiction is one thing--that's a normal part of capitalism and perfectly moral, and probably what you thought I meant by "watchdog group". A conglomerate of media sources agreeing to "unite against fake news" runs the very real risk of ending up being like the union of railroads in Atlas Shrugged: an organization fundamentally opposed to capitalism and independence. When I said "watchdog group" I meant the type of group being discussed in the current story arc in the webcomic "Least I Could Do". <br /><br />I also think that there's real danger in the way we're discussing fake news. Something like Snopes represents a division of intellectual labor, but in a way that seems fundamentally different from what Google, Facebook, et al. are proposing. Snopes says "Here's a story, here's what we can find out about it." Google and Facebook are proposing restricting access to news stories. I agree that they are private enterprises, so can operate as they wish--but at the same time, the union of railroads in Atlas Shrugged was a private group, and the elimination of the Pheonix-Durango was still a vile act. (Not that I'm saying Atlas Shrugged should be considered an infallible holy book, but it gives a great example.) I think there are real issues with someone else deciding what people will have access to--even if it starts well, there are too many opportunities for abuse. <br /><br />The other problem is that Snopes operates from the perspective that people are fundamentally intelligent. It gives the data and says "Here's our conclusion", but lets you draw your own. In contrast, what Google, Facebook, et al. are proposing fundamentally treats people as too stupid to make their own choices. They are proposing to tailor the news they provide because--and they've been pretty open about it--they don't think people are smart enough to figure it out for themselves. Combined with my point above, this becomes really problematic. <br /><br />I acknowledge that I'm running very close to several moral lines (again, Facebook and Google are private companies), but I think these are major issues that we need to consider on this topic. This is particularly true since the only reason we're discussing it is because one side of the political spectrum is throwing a temper tantrum and flailing about trying to figure out how to make sure they get their way in the future. Dinwarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06138006602385020048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-91503970050603926022017-01-10T12:00:29.448-06:002017-01-10T12:00:29.448-06:00Dinwar,
There is an important difference between ...Dinwar,<br /><br />There is an important difference between the government declaring news to be fake or genuine and a watchdog group doing so: No one is being forced to fund or in any way abide by the judgements of the latter. <br /><br />GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-55102311828819115182017-01-10T11:35:41.865-06:002017-01-10T11:35:41.865-06:00This fake news "controversy" has rather ...This fake news "controversy" has rather terrifying implications. Leave aside, for a moment, propaganda--how do you classify news sources that are simply wrong? Anyone doing investigative journalism is going to make errors; the nature of learning new things is that sometimes you're wrong. At what point does "wrong" become "fake"? The dividing line between the two is not nearly as firm as people want to believe; for example, often two people can look at the same facts and come to different, even opposite, conclusions. To give another example, tabloids often include real facts along with made-up nonsense. This gives any governing body (government or industry watchdog group) almost unlimited leeway to declare news fake. There is no way to draft an objective criteria for differentiating between fake and real news, and attempting to do so via legislative fiat or the equivalent is something akin to attempting to shave your beard with a claymore landmine--it'll make a bloody mess, and won't actually do the job! <br /><br />I do get grim amusement out of one aspect of this, though. When Trump declared that he wouldn't accept the election as valid if he lost, the Democrats lost their minds. Now Trump has won, and the Democrats are throwing every Leftist attack they can at him to avoid accepting the results as legitimate--they were hacked, the public was fooled by a false consciousness, what have you. When Republicans point out that news is biased, they're paranoid conspiracy-theorist Doomsday cultists. When the Left doesn't get their way, suddenly the news system in the USA is broken and we must abandon the First Amendment to fix it! This election has demonstrated, in the type of clarity one expects in a novel but rarely sees in real life, that the two sides of our political spectrum really are two sides of the same coin. Dinwarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06138006602385020048noreply@blogger.com