Fake news and its effect on the community

[Ves]

Aren't there laws against misrepresentation in the media ?

If not, there should be.

Why? Wouldn't that be limiting free speech?

 

[cynic]

True, but it's good to see that at least some people are taking action against fake news.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-20/facebook-outlines-steps-to-fight-fake-news/8040404

Some might see that as a step towards elevating the integrity of content, but I see the stifling of freedom of expression as the more likely outcome.

Some carefully considered regulation against rampant and blatant abuse can be helpful, but I seldom see sufficient care being employed when these "knee jerk" reactions occur.

But we can, of course, wait and see if your confidence proves to be justified.

 

[SirRumpole]

Why? Wouldn't that be limiting free speech?

Yes I know it's a vexed subject, but seriously should people be allowed to make up any cr@p they like ? There has to be some deterrent or liars will get into positions of high executive power.

Err, hang on a sec.

 

[Ves]

Yes I know it's a vexed subject, but seriously should people be allowed to make up any cr@p they like ? There has to be some deterrent or liars will get into positions of high executive power.

Err, hang on a sec.

With idealistic concepts such as freedom of speech there is always a trade-off, if a person is allowed to say anything they wish without restriction, then there is always going to be the potential for someone else to be disadvantaged or harmed in some circumstances.

It has been interesting of late that certain media outlets and social groups have been ruthless in their argument for freedom of speech in some areas, but increasingly wanting to restrict it in others.

 

[SirRumpole]

It has been interesting of late that certain media outlets and social groups have been ruthless in their argument for freedom of speech in some areas, but increasingly wanting to restrict it in others.

Hah, indeed yes, like One Nation shutting down a press conference when faced with a few hard questions.

 

[noco]

Hah, indeed yes, like One Nation shutting down a press conference when faced with a few hard questions.

Rumpy, you have been a very naughty boy in making people believe the whole of One Nation has been dragged into some sort a press shut down for not answering hard questions....Pauline Hanson was not involved in that press conference so why try implicate her and One Nation ?.....One reason and one reason only was to discredit One Nation.....Not a very nice way to go about things really...What cad you are.

This is a personal event for Senator Rod Culleton to take responsibility for something that happened in the past over a $7.50 key and it will go to the court for settlement.

Pauline Hanson, as you well know, is not prepared to stand by her Senator for legal fees or any other matter that may arise in the court.

So I suggest you with draw your post and apologise.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...larious-press-conference-20161102-gsgjee.html

 

[McLovin]

With idealistic concepts such as freedom of speech there is always a trade-off, if a person is allowed to say anything they wish without restriction, then there is always going to be the potential for someone else to be disadvantaged or harmed in some circumstances.

That's why freedom of speech is limited. Even in the USA, speech as expression is protected, speech as conduct isn't: Only the actor on stage can yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. The US is far to dogmatic and zealous about the Bill of Rights. It's now at the point where a bunch of religious nuts can picket a (heterosexual) dead solider's funeral with "God hates fags" placards because of their misinterpretation of the Bible and they cannot be told to stop because it infringes their First Amendment rights.

It has been interesting of late that certain media outlets and social groups have been ruthless in their argument for freedom of speech in some areas, but increasingly wanting to restrict it in others.

Oh yeah, I bet if the Islamic Weekly was advocating Australia becoming an Islamic country the tune on free speech would change very quickly.

 

[Ves]

That's why freedom of speech is limited. Even in the USA, speech as expression is protected, speech as conduct isn't: Only the actor on stage can yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. The US is far to dogmatic and zealous about the Bill of Rights. It's now at the point where a bunch of religious nuts can picket a (heterosexual) dead solider's funeral with "God hates fags" placards because of their misinterpretation of the Bible and they cannot be told to stop because it infringes their First Amendment rights.

Yep, there was a very good article re the distinction between speech as expression and speech as action on another site I regularly read (as part of the unnamed "big issue" that many Conservatives are up in arms about at the moment). Unfortunately it's behind a pay wall so I am unable to link it.

 

[bellenuit]

One of the problems with banning articles that deliberately misrepresent facts or are complete fakes is that the act of banning them adds credence to what the articles say. The news will get out anyway (from private blogs etc.) but this time will be bannered with the sub-heading "What the Government (or whoever) Tried to Prevent You Reading".

The best solution is to educate people in bull**** detection. People should exhibit a high degree of scepticism to everything that appears on a site that is known to have an agenda.

 

[skc]

It's difficult if not impossible to regulate the source of fake news... it's simply too numerous and distributed to control. Plus no one would have the time and resource to fact check everything.

I think Facebook should have an obligation to manage this issue. May be it simply needs a "Doubtful", "Fake" or "I am not sure" button (similar to "Like") as an option for each news piece being shared. An article with too many of these negative reactions would at least alert the reader that the contents may be sus.

Apparently, much of the fake news are being passed on / shared by people who are proponents to such view. E.g. Trump supporters pass on news that smear Clinton, tin-hat brigade sharing news on UFO, chemtrails etc etc. So the above will probably help some portion of truely neutral readers identify possible fake news, but those who want to believe will seek out news that conform with their own views anyway.

 

[SirRumpole]

It's difficult if not impossible to regulate the source of fake news... it's simply too numerous and distributed to control. Plus no one would have the time and resource to fact check everything.

You probably don't have to check the sources of all fake news, just take one or two of them to court, force them to admit that they published b.s., fine them millions and others will learn the lesson p.d.q.

 

[cynic]

You probably don't have to check the sources of all fake news, just take one or two of them to court, force them to admit that they published b.s., fine them millions and others will learn the lesson p.d.q.

Good luck with that!

And here's some material to help you on your way:

http://www.disclose.tv/

 

[pixel]

It's difficult if not impossible to regulate the source of fake news... it's simply too numerous and distributed to control. Plus no one would have the time and resource to fact check everything.

I think Facebook should have an obligation to manage this issue. May be it simply needs a "Doubtful", "Fake" or "I am not sure" button (similar to "Like") as an option for each news piece being shared. An article with too many of these negative reactions would at least alert the reader that the contents may be sus.

Apparently, much of the fake news are being passed on / shared by people who are proponents to such view. E.g. Trump supporters pass on news that smear Clinton, tin-hat brigade sharing news on UFO, chemtrails etc etc. So the above will probably help some portion of truely neutral readers identify possible fake news, but those who want to believe will seek out news that conform with their own views anyway.

Your last paragraph hits it on the head.

I doubt that a "Doubt" button would work. Facebookers "with an agenda" would simply go around and mark as "fake" everything they don't like. It would simply multiply what the self-righteous minorities do now with flaming and trolling against established Science. Be it the Ark Replica with its claimed "proof" exhibits, anti-abortion, right to lifers, or any trolls in between.
You can't legislate intelligence, nor can you regulate what can or cannot be believed. Pandora's box is open, the contents splashed all over the www, and the result is Anarchy. We have to learn - and teach our kids - to live with it.

 

[pixel]

You probably don't have to check the sources of all fake news, just take one or two of them to court, force them to admit that they published b.s., fine them millions and others will learn the lesson p.d.q.

Yeah, that might work! (NOT!)
Read up on the state of affairs between Capilano and the serial pest blogger claiming the honey is poisoned. How long, if ever, will it take to obtain a conviction? And if they are successful and the judgment goes in their favour to the tune of a $Million, what do you think will happen?
I'll tell you: The blogger will declare bankruptcy, close his website and open another one under a different name, peddling the same guff.

But a few Lawyers will drive around in a new Beemer or Porsche.

 

[qldfrog]

Yeah, that might work! (NOT!)
Read up on the state of affairs between Capilano and the serial pest blogger claiming the honey is poisoned. How long, if ever, will it take to obtain a conviction? And if they are successful and the judgment goes in their favour to the tune of a $Million, what do you think will happen?
I'll tell you: The blogger will declare bankruptcy, close his website and open another one under a different name, peddling the same guff.

But a few Lawyers will drive around in a new Beemer or Porsche.

And in most cases like the above the easier way out would be to prove by unbiaised check/test that the allegations were false; Once you fails that, the story spread especially when you just have press release denials
And how do you read the news: Pixel claims allegation of poisoned honey, i read allegation of using honey coming from places where chemical forbidden to be used in most western countries are used and possibly tainting the imported honey; not exactly the same....two views two interpretations

Capilano is a bad example in my opinion as for honey, it is easy to find unbiaised check and release full clear disclaiming facts;
[which has definitively NOT been done by Capilano so the way this company is digging its own grave IMHO;Report by Choice were at best ambigious as I read them and the obstruction on the court process is the perfect conspiracy material. Amateur disastrous management in term of PR is my view...]
But it is not always so easy: good luck with political views for example or non numeric feelings!!!
And what is fake news?
The west is fed the notion Syrian anti government forces are freedom fighters yet the very same al qaeda (who these guys belong to) is evil when bombing the twin towers in NY....
Sure they are obvious Michele Obama is a man type of crap, but for more subtle infos..not so easy
We live in a world of propaganda but now the difference is that it is not unique and we do not have pravda feeding the east block while voice of america feed the west:
every individual is potentially a target of multiple of these channels and will tend to select the ones he/she likes, reinforcing established beliefs
We go to a world of extreme:
extreme wealth/poverty, extreme faith/fanatism, extreme political views/opinions and the medias are just representative/followers

 

[SirRumpole]

And in most cases like the above the easier way out would be to prove by unbiaised check/test that the allegations were false; Once you fails that, the story spread especially when you just have press release denials

Given that and to add my own conspiracy theory, I find it sad and strange that the ABC discontinued its Fact Check office, I also find it strange that very few politicians lept to its defence.

Say what you like about the ABC but it's clear to me that the political class WANT an uneducated public and compliant media whose sole purpose is to regurgitate the press releases that they hand out with little analysis.

But of course I'm paranoid so that idea is probably just hysteria.

 

[qldfrog]

but it's clear to me that the political class WANT an uneducated public and compliant media whose sole purpose is to regurgitate the press releases that they hand out with little analysis.

But of course I'm paranoid so that idea is probably just hysteria.

Fully agree and both sides major parties want it so that they can share the loot, and the backlash comes in the form of Trump style or National front elections with the majors seemingly surprised...
Education, critical spirit is the key, good luck Australia!!!

 

[superbatman]

I never believe anything that is from a unreliable source in internet.

 

[pixel]

I never believe anything that is from a unreliable source in internet.

That is easy to say, even easy to do in many cases.
The differentiation lies in the reader's personal interpretation of what is "reliable".
A Pauline Hanson supporter will be much sooner inclined to take as Gospel everything she has twittered or published. Someone closer to the middle or beyond it, on the other hand, will dismiss the bulk as bunkum or, at the very least, try to verify her claims against known or provable facts. Same with Climate Change, Marriage Equality, and a whole swag of issues where opinions get published as facts - which they are not.

 

[cynic]

The distinction between facts, opinions, facts of opinion and opinions of facts, is an intersesting topic in itself.

The fact that someone is expressing opinions as though they are facts, does indeed call the integrity of the offered information into question.

However, sometimes opinions and facts do coincide. So the fact of an opinion being expressed isn't necessarily sufficient to automatically declare that opinion as non factual. As always, irrespective of the perceived integrity of the issuer, discernment is a useful quality when considering information from any source.