Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since the election last week, there has been a lot of discussion about "Fake News" and the effect it had on the election, especially since Donald Trump was the winner. Twitter, Google and Facebook have all taken action in response.
Twitter in the last few days announced that it was banning "alt-right" accounts (it banned Milo Yiannopoulos a few months ago). Google and Facebook have announced that they will ban "Fake News" websites from using their advertising platforms, which will also deny them the associated revenues on their publications.
Recent reports state that corporations such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter are considering how to curtail “fake news” through such steps as blocking advertising. The timing is curious.
It is one matter to distinguish between legitimate intellectual property and pirated material online, such as efforts described by the Digital Citizens Alliance. It is entirely different matter to distinguish between the “truth” and something less than the truth.
The recent “fake news” stories about Facebook, Google, and Twitter focus less on the inaccuracy of online information than on the possibility that online information, whether accurate or not, may have influenced the recent election. This all begs the question: had the election turned out differently, would there be a “fake news” campaign this week? Almost certainly not.
Blocking information—even disturbing information–from reach consumers is deeply troubling. George Orwell wrote in the preface to Animal Farm: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Neither corporations nor the government should be engaged in categorically blocking that liberty, that ability of one set of speakers from reaching a potential audience.
{Quite a bit more at the link}
Of course Facebook had a controversy earlier this year around censoring conservative content, after which it fired a whole team of its content review staff. Google is notorious for its search algorithms, which promote websites in the search list based on a variety of criteria, some apparently content related and of course also apparently based on the money paid to Google. Twitter has apparently banned a number of people who posted messages that did not fit in with their preferred political "narrative".
As I search for information on Google, I increasingly find myself needing to use alternative search engines, as Google seems to be devoted to promoting information relating to certain topics that is not what I am looking for. A good example of this is Brexit, on which I started a thread here that I have made quite a few researched posts in. Starting the day the vote came in, the Google news feed was almost entirely filled with negative and very critical stories about Brexit, even though Brexit had just won a decisive victory. There were plenty of pro-Brexit articles, news sites, and blog posts about Brexit on the internet, but it was damn hard to get at them using Google.
Also, let's get real. The mass media organizations like the New York Times and the Cable News networks publish dishonest crap all of the time, then just move on like nothing ever happened. These stories are in too many cases "Fake News," that were either published to promote a partisan narrative, or just to be sensational in order to jack up their ratings and their revenues, which is exactly what these "Fake News" websites are accused of doing.
Some of this is clearly just a partisan retaliation against Donald Trump winning the election. In fact, it appears that a number of popular conservative websites are being tagged by some as "Fake News," while similar leftist websites are given a free pass. For example, here is a link to an article about a list of "Fake News" websites produced by an assistant professor at Merrimack College, which is apparently a popular topic of discussion on Facebook, which includes Brietbart on the list, but excludes the Huffington Post.
Both of these websites spew their share of fabricated, sensationalist crap, that is a fact. But the problem here is the disparate, clearly partisan treatment, which appears to be a lot of what is motivating these actions.
So, should "Fake News" be suppressed by these sorts of large social media organizations on the internet? This is such a difficult thing to do, that they would probably be better off staying away from it unless they can do it in a clearly unbiased, non-partisan way. Which the people leading these organizations appear to be anything but.
Problem is the list is mostly right leaning fake news.
They need to get rid of left leaning fake news.
AND
"Obama (Soon will say Trump) gives 1 trillion dollars to homeowners" ads
Is Breitbart a "Fake News" website? Is the Huffington Post? Both spew large numbers of fabricated, sensationalist, click-bait, "Fake News" articles.
The trick is going to be identifying which sites are basically just nothing but "Fake News" and the others that have some "Fake News," (such as Breitbart and HuffPo) without bringing people's partisan biases into play.
Rest assured that much of the motivation behind wanting to do this now is that Trump won the election. If Hillary won, do you really think this would be a hot issue, like it is now?
We can't have Big Government interfering with free speech.
The difference is that the government can (potentially) shut down and arrest people for what they publish or say, whereas a private company can only choose not to allow it on their own website or property.
I don't think a private company like Facebook or Google should pick and choose what ideas they allow, but they have the right to do it. It's their domain. The government should never be allowed to decide what the "correct" ideas are, ever.
Companies like Facebook already intentionally alter what's considered "trending news."
I'd recommend sticking going directly to the reputable newspaper's websites or even buying the physical paper (they still make them) if you really want decent journalism. News papers conduct better journalism than any major TV network. Yes, the NYT is a bit liberal and I will say, they covered the election poorly, but news with a viewpoint doesn't invalidate the news. It's still better journalism than you'd get form CNN or Fox. Just avoid the clickbait **** on their website and you'll be fine. Or support local papers and such.
I can't get behind censorship & infringing on our 1st amendment right to free speech. To the people on the left calling for this type of facism...are you sure you want Donald Trump deciding which websites are delivering "fake news"? It might not end up as you'd hoped.
Last edited by Mason3000; 11-17-2016 at 08:35 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
