By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Macron Wants To Ban 'Fake News' During Elections

Aeolus451 said:
palou said:

The main proposal was to make sourcing an obligation. That's pretty good, I think.

It's still flaky as hell. We're talking about controlling information. Most of the established news is left leaning and they've already shown they have to qualms about spinning stories to fit their agenda. This just sounds like mainstream news wants to cut out out smaller news sources.

If you have a source, that really shouldn't be too hard to add at the end. If you don't have a source, don't bother publishing.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

Around the Network
palou said:
Aeolus451 said:

It's still flaky as hell. We're talking about controlling information. Most of the established news is left leaning and they've already shown they have to qualms about spinning stories to fit their agenda. This just sounds like mainstream news wants to cut out out smaller news sources.

If you have a source, that really shouldn't be too hard to add at the end. If you don't have a source, don't bother publishing.

1. Sources are often arguable if they are legit or accurate. 

2. Elections are time sensitive. Ya only need to freeze a story temporarily to make it not worth anything regardless if it was accurate or not. 

3. They would abuse it. It would do more harm than good.



o_O.Q said:
Errorist76 said:

I didn’t say that‘s what’s written in those articles...it’s what’s happening. Those pages and thousands of paid fake accounts mainly support parties like the AfD here in Germany or Front Nationale in France, for example. The same happened with Trump. It makes perfect sense for Putin to try to destabilise the EU (or US), in best case destroy it from within.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/europe-s-far-right-enjoys-backing-russia-s-putin-n718926

understood, but i'm just asking for some examples of the lies that are being told... the articles didn't really contain any

For example there’s a site called Anonymousnews which pretends to be Anonymous but really is run by the far right populist Mario Rönsch, who published sensationalist and mainly racist bullshit and lies, half-facts without context..exactly what could be considered fake news!

It’s only in German though. It’s like Breitbart but much worse I guess.

http://www.anonymousnews.ru/



o_O.Q said:
VAMatt said:
It's stuff like this that reminds me that all governments are oppressive. How can someone even suggest censorship of this sort and look at themselves in the mirror without puking?

because they want to bring about a utopia and understand subconsciously (not consciously) that it relies on enslaving everyone

i've come to realise that many people are terrified of accepting the responsibility that being a free (moderately) person brings 

Yeah.  Unfortunately, I think you are correct.



Errorist76 said:
o_O.Q said:

understood, but i'm just asking for some examples of the lies that are being told... the articles didn't really contain any

For example there’s a site called Anonymousnews which pretends to be Anonymous but really is run by the far right populist Mario Rönsch, who published sensationalist and mainly racist bullshit and lies, half-facts without context..exactly what could be considered fake news!

It’s only in German though. It’s like Breitbart but even worse I guess.

http://www.anonymousnews.ru/

"which pretends to be Anonymous"

anyone can be considered a member of anonymous, they do not have a members list or anything like that

 

"who published sensationalist and mainly racist bullshit and lies, half-facts without context..exactly what could be considered fake news!"

examples?... and this site is separate from the facebook ads i suppose? or are the facebook ads based on this site?



Around the Network

The age of social media censorship will fully arrive, which isn't surprising at all. What's surprising to me is how many people are cheering its arrival. The actual fuck.



As is always true of censorship, there is one, and only one, principle driving all of this: power. Facebook will submit to and obey the censorship demands of governments and officials who actually wield power over it, while ignoring those who do not. That’s why declared enemies of the U.S. and Israeli governments are vulnerable to censorship measures by Facebook, whereas U.S and Israeli officials (and their most tyrannical and repressive allies) are not:

All of this illustrates that the same severe dangers from state censorship are raised at least as much by the pleas for Silicon Valley giants to more actively censor “bad speech.” Calls for state censorship may often be well-intentioned — a desire to protect marginalized groups from damaging “hate speech” — yet, predictably, they are far more often used against marginalized groups: to censor them rather than protect them. One need merely look at how hate speech laws are used in Europe, or on U.S. college campuses, to see that the censorship victims are often critics of European wars, or activists against Israeli occupation, or advocates for minority rights.

One can create a fantasy world in one’s head, if one wishes, in which Silicon Valley executives use their power to protect marginalized peoples around the world by censoring those who wish to harm them. But in the real world, that is nothing but a sad pipe dream. Just as governments will, these companies will use their censorship power to serve, not to undermine, the world’s most powerful factions.

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments/



o_O.Q said:
Errorist76 said:

For example there’s a site called Anonymousnews which pretends to be Anonymous but really is run by the far right populist Mario Rönsch, who published sensationalist and mainly racist bullshit and lies, half-facts without context..exactly what could be considered fake news!

It’s only in German though. It’s like Breitbart but even worse I guess.

http://www.anonymousnews.ru/

"which pretends to be Anonymous"

anyone can be considered a member of anonymous, they do not have a members list or anything like that

 

"who published sensationalist and mainly racist bullshit and lies, half-facts without context..exactly what could be considered fake news!"

examples?... and this site is separate from the facebook ads i suppose? or are the facebook ads based on this site?

Use some Google translate if you must.

and no, Anonymous have several times officially declared the guy stands against their ideas and is no part of Anonymous. The guy used to run the Facebook page for Anonymous.Kollektiv, his former name but was banned by Facebook a while ago for posting hate speech and misinformation.



Aeolus451 said:
palou said:

If you have a source, that really shouldn't be too hard to add at the end. If you don't have a source, don't bother publishing.

1. Sources are often arguable if they are legit or accurate. 

2. Elections are time sensitive. Ya only need to freeze a story temporarily to make it not worth anything regardless if it was accurate or not. 

3. They would abuse it. It would do more harm than good.

There's a very easy way to make something unarguably true (stuff you learn in middle school, really...), don't say "this happened", say "source A states that this happened". If you have interpretation to add, "I believe that we can conclude this."

 

That's a habit all media sources should be taking, regardless.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

Aeolus451 said:

Sounds like something a state inching closer to totalitarianism would do.

"Fake News" is very subjective and a censoring campaign against it could be applied to anything the ruling party doesn't like.

Whether or not something is propaganda is objective though.

Does a news outlet continually make arguments in favor of one candidate and against another?

Does a news outlet give equal time to both sides?

Does a news outlet offer up opinions (socialism is good/bad) instead of facts (socialism would cost many/few dollars, according to the CBO).




The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true.