Implementing the Ministry of Truth: the "fake news" scare

[RegGuheert]

If one is attempting to implement the Ministry of Truth into a society where free speech is a prized possession of most individuals, a full-frontal attack simply will not work. So what to do? One must convince the individuals in that society that people need to be protected from "fake" sources of information so that they do not become confused. And you need to convince each individual that this is not needed for them specifically, but rather it is needed for those other, poor, ignorant, defenseless people that cannot properly discern the truth from fiction.

 

In this way, those in power are attempting to silence their critics by having unfettered control over the flow of information to the masses.

 

If you think suppressing "fake news" is a good thing, please think again. It is simply a thinly-veiled attack on our freedom of speech. We need to fight vigorously against this ongoing movement to control the free flow of information.

[JoJosMom]

If one is attempting to implement the Ministry of Truth into a society where free speech is a prized possession of most individuals, a full-frontal attack simply will not work. So what to do? One must convince the individuals in that society that people need to be protected from "fake" sources of information so that they do not become confused. And you need to convince each individual that this is not needed for them specifically, but rather it is needed for those other, poor, ignorant, defenseless people that cannot properly discern the truth from fiction.

 

In this way, those in power are attempting to silence their critics by having unfettered control over the flow of information to the masses.

 

If you think suppressing "fake news" is a good thing, please think again. It is simply a thinly-veiled attack on our freedom of speech. We need to fight vigorously against this ongoing movement to control the free flow of information.

 

Amen, and amen.

 

Thank you for posting.

[The Girls' Mom]

Great point.  Education, not suppression.  

 

Now if I could just somehow get my relatives to read past a freakin' headline, and quit retelling lies as the gospel truth, that'd be awesome.  

[Spy Car]

No one is advocating setting up a Ministry of Truth Reg. Except maybe the thin-skinned fellow.

 

But Google or other companies pulling advertising dollars from websites that deliberately lie and spread misinformation is a great thing.

 

Bill

[RegGuheert]

No one is advocating setting up a Ministry of Truth Reg. Except maybe the thin-skinned fellow.

But Google or other companies pulling advertising dollars from websites that deliberately lie and spread misinformation is a great thing.

Choose one. So who decides what is misinformation?

 

Google, Facebook and others are going WAY beyond that:

 

 

Google wants to rank websites based on facts not linksLet's start with the ad hominem fallacy:

A Google research team is adapting that model to measure the trustworthiness of a page, rather than its reputation across the web. Instead of counting incoming links, the system – which is not yet live – counts the number of incorrect facts within a page. “A source that has few false facts is considered to be trustworthy,†says the team (arxiv.org/abs/1502.03519v1). The score they compute for each page is its Knowledge-Based Trust score.

Then we can follow that up with the ad populum fallacy:

The software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the internet. Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings.

It is incredibly naive to believe that we can somehow discern "facts" via a Google search.

[Luckymama]

This is.not going to end well.

[Guest]

If one is attempting to implement the Ministry of Truth into a society where free speech is a prized possession of most individuals, a full-frontal attack simply will not work. So what to do? One must convince the individuals in that society that people need to be protected from "fake" sources of information so that they do not become confused. And you need to convince each individual that this is not needed for them specifically, but rather it is needed for those other, poor, ignorant, defenseless people that cannot properly discern the truth from fiction.

 

In this way, those in power are attempting to silence their critics by having unfettered control over the flow of information to the masses.

 

If you think suppressing "fake news" is a good thing, please think again. It is simply a thinly-veiled attack on our freedom of speech. We need to fight vigorously against this ongoing movement to control the free flow of information.

THANK. YOU.

 

Fake news has been a thing since forever. (National Enquirer, anyone?) I'm gobsmacked by the recent attempts to advocate censorship and curtail the First Amendment. Is this still the United States of America, or not?

[Farrar]

Fake news has the right to try. Free speech.

 

We have the right to try and stop it through education. And that includes lots of denunciation. Also free speech.

 

An uninformed, paranoid electorate who don't know what to believe is not good for democracy.

 

Private corporations clamping down on what people talk about on their forums is absolutely legal and is not the same thing as the government doing it.

[bibiche]

Yes, don't worry: stupid people will still have the right to believe fake news.

[TranquilMind]

Choose one. So who decides what is misinformation?

 

Google, Facebook and others are going WAY beyond that:

 

 

 

Google wants to rank websites based on facts not linksLet's start with the ad hominem fallacy:Then we can follow that up with the ad populum fallacy:It is incredibly naive to believe that we can somehow discern "facts" via a Google search.

 

That is the sole relevant question, right here. 

[TranquilMind]

Yes, don't worry: stupid people will still have the right to believe fake news.

I don't think you are allowed to call people "stupid", or at least I have been dinged for using it in the same way, describing no one in particular, but just a class.

 

But yeah, there are already gullible people who believe everything is as they are told it is by the mainstream media.  Then we find out 50 years later how much the PTB were lying. 

Edited December 7, 2016 by TranquilMind

[Farrar]

Fake news threatened my city. It's just not that funny to me at this moment.

 

I'm pretty disturbed by what it's doing to people. The idea that the "mainstream media" is "the same" or "just as bad" as sites that LITERALLY MAKE STUFF UP FOR MONEY is something I cannot understand. The mainstream media is flawed in various ways, but it's not a guy sitting in a suburban basement completely making things up for clicks.

[RegGuheert]

Private corporations clamping down on what people talk about on their forums is absolutely legal and is not the same thing as the government doing it.

I agree with that point in principle.

 

That said, two things give me major cause for pause:

 

1) Corporations such as Google and Facebook have significant control over the flow of information in today's world.

2) I'm not sure which becomes more of a threat to our rights as it grows: big government or big business. They seems to be quite friendly bedfellows these days.

[hornblower]

big government or big business. They seems to be quite friendly bedfellows these days.

 

Given whom your country elected that's a huge understatement. It's literally the same thing. 

[Farrar]

I agree with that point in principle.

 

That said, two things give me major cause for pause:

 

1) Corporations such as Google and Facebook have significant control over the flow of information in today's world.

2) I'm not sure which becomes more of a threat to our rights as it grows: big government or big business. They seems to be quite friendly bedfellows these days.

 

The fact that we've ceded our speech forums mostly to corporations in exchange for data is, indeed, something worth pondering. The fact that these corporations have a lot of power over our lives is also worth thinking about. As is the relationship between corporations and the government.

 

But I can't be upset that the corporations are choosing to respond to people asking them to change their algorithms or to ban people from doxxing or to ban stories that are dangerously ignorant. They *should* ban people from talking about pizzagate, for example. You want to make up random stuff, fine, do it on your own servers with your own money. And then we'll know who should be held liable if someone actually gets killed, which is where it feels like it's going. And where my police should send the bill for all the extra work they're having to do.

 

I am way more worried about the effects of fake news right now than private companies not allowing people to lie on their websites.

[goldberry]

 

But Google or other companies pulling advertising dollars from websites that deliberately lie and spread misinformation is a great thing.

 

 

 

Free market, yes?  Pulling your dollars away from something is not the same as censoring it.  Just not supporting it.  

[Charlie]

If one is attempting to implement the Ministry of Truth into a society where free speech is a prized possession of most individuals, a full-frontal attack simply will not work. So what to do? One must convince the individuals in that society that people need to be protected from "fake" sources of information so that they do not become confused. And you need to convince each individual that this is not needed for them specifically, but rather it is needed for those other, poor, ignorant, defenseless people that cannot properly discern the truth from fiction.

 

In this way, those in power are attempting to silence their critics by having unfettered control over the flow of information to the masses.

 

If you think suppressing "fake news" is a good thing, please think again. It is simply a thinly-veiled attack on our freedom of speech. We need to fight vigorously against this ongoing movement to control the free flow of information.

 

Suggesting Google has unfettered control over the flow of information is like suggesting Walmart has unfettered control over sex in the United States because they don't sell adult toys. Consumers have options, and those options are not being suppressed or censored just because a private service imposes standards unpopular with some of its consumers.

[Farrar]

THANK. YOU.

 

Fake news has been a thing since forever. (National Enquirer, anyone?) I'm gobsmacked by the recent attempts to advocate censorship and curtail the First Amendment. Is this still the United States of America, or not?

 

The government is prevented from censoring in general (though they can regulate time, place, manner, etc.). Private companies are NOT prevented from censoring anything on their own websites. This is a question of free speech and its limits, but it is absolutely not a First Amendment question. And saying so misunderstands the First Amendment.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Farrar

[goldberry]

The idea that the "mainstream media" is "the same" or "just as bad" as sites that LITERALLY MAKE STUFF UP FOR MONEY is something I cannot understand. The mainstream media is flawed in various ways, but it's not a guy sitting in a suburban basement completely making things up for clicks.

 

This is true.  Someone posted about WaPo posting Michael Flynn security advisor tweeted about pizzagate, as if that was comparable somehow?  It was in fact, his son, also named Michael Flynn, and they corrected and apologized. 

 

Different from just making up conspiracy theories and not caring if they are true, much less apologizing when people are hurt.

[RegGuheert]

Suggesting Google has unfettered control over the flow of information is like suggesting Walmart has unfettered control over sex in the United States because they don't sell adult toys. Consumers have options, and those options are not being suppressed or censored just because a private service imposes standards unpopular with some of its consumers.

The reason Google is popular as a source of information is because their algorithms allowed easier access (in most cases) to the desired information than previous attempts at search.

 

Once they decide they have become the gatekeepers of Truth is the moment we need to get rid of them and find an honest broker of information to replace them.

[TranquilMind]

Free market, yes?  Pulling your dollars away from something is not the same as censoring it.  Just not supporting it.  

Sure, that is fine, until it becomes used as a tool to silence dissent, especially in cases of collaboration. 

Edited December 7, 2016 by TranquilMind

[Farrar]

The reason Google is popular as a source of information is because their algorithms allowed easier access (in most cases) to the desired information than previous attempts at search.

 

Once they decide they have become the gatekeepers of Truth is the moment we need to get rid of them and find an honest broker of information to replace them.

 

Your use of the word "honest" here is confusing. When people search for information, they generally want true information. The fact that Google's algorithms might be more likely to lead to correct information instead of incorrect information is not a travesty for "truth." It's a win.

 

And no one is stopping the purveyors of nonsense to keep trying to purvey it. Or other search engines from competing with Google and purposefully pulling up more false information. If anyone specifically wants a search engine that's trying to lead you to falsehoods, that is.

[RegGuheert]

Your use of the word "honest" here is confusing. When people search for information, they generally want true information. The fact that Google's algorithms might be more likely to lead to correct information instead of incorrect information is not a travesty for "truth." It's a win.

As I pointed out earlier, Google's approach is based on logical fallacies. To believe that today's popular ideas are truth is quite naive.

[Charlie]

The reason Google is popular as a source of information is because their algorithms allowed easier access (in most cases) to the desired information than previous attempts at search.

 

Once they decide they have become the gatekeepers of Truth is the moment we need to get rid of them and find an honest broker of information to replace them.

 

Well, this is how I break it down in my mind. A private enterprise doesn't speak for the state, regardless of its popularity, and speaking for, or as the state is what "ministry" implies. So right there the analogy fails, even considering that all analogies do break off at some point. This one doesn't just break off, it's unrelated. It's a fabricated fright. While people have the right to sell ideas they think are frightening, they don't have the right to expect the best advertising space, or even equal advertising space.

 

Google is popular because it's remarkably efficient. Also, because it was efficient and had good marketing early on in the game, it's has bigger chops than its competition. It's a huge name brand that is so recognizable, it's become a verb ("Google it")! But competition is not being censored here just because one company is popular and decides which contracts to make. Your call to demand Google carry information they don't want would be like me demanding Walmart carry sex toys. Walmart doesn't have to. Not even if I get a hundred friends to complain. I have the right to create and sell sex toys, I don't have the right to force the shop of my choice to sell them. In the same way you have the right to create websites, but you don't have the right to force companies to link them.

 

The idea of gatekeeper only works if they have some authority to censor information, which they do not. Efficiency and popularity should not be confused with authority. If they were to become a monopoly, that would be a different story and I might agree with some of your concerns, but that's not what you're talking about.

 

This is simply a matter of some customers feeling rejected because their product isn't going to be put on the front shelf of the local major store anymore. That's not censorship. It's not gate-keeping. It's just frustration.

[goldberry]

 Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings.

 

They are still going to be listing them, they just may be on the second or third page instead of the first page.  That's not exactly censorship.

 

And as for anyone being an honest broker of information, the ranking/listing game is already being played by anyone who has the money to play it. How honest is that, when it's already being manipulated.  I'd rather see ranking based on reliability of information than money.  But I'm sure money will figure out how to manipulate that too.

[JumpyTheFrog]

I agree with that point in principle.

2) I'm not sure which becomes more of a threat to our rights as it grows: big government or big business. They seems to be quite friendly bedfellows these days.

In the sci-fi show Continuum, the planet is run by the Corporate Congress. I have seen episodes of other shows that sort of hint at the same thing. Clearly there are people noticing that our country seems headed down that path.

 

ETA: The show Dark Matter is set in a galaxy where the corporations seem to run almost everything and the Galactic Authority is just a police force to do their bidding.

Edited December 7, 2016 by HoppyTheToad

[goldberry]

Google is popular because it's remarkably efficient. Also, because it was efficient and had good marketing early on in the game, it's has bigger chops than its competition. It's a huge name brand that is so recognizable, it's become a verb ("Google it")! But competition is not being censored here just because one company is popular and decides which contracts to make. Your call to demand Google carry information they don't want would be like me demanding Walmart carry sex toys. Walmart doesn't have to. Not even if I get a hundred friends to complain. I have the right to create and sell sex toys, I don't have the right to force the shop of my choice to sell them. In the same way you have the right to create websites, but you don't have the right to force companies to link them.

 

The idea of gatekeeper only works if they have some authority to censor information, which they do not. Efficiency and popularity should not be confused with authority. If they were to become a monopoly, that would be a different story and I might agree with some of your concerns, but that's not what you're talking about.

 

 

Very well put, thank you!

[RegGuheert]

The idea of gatekeeper only works if they have some authority to censor information, which they do not.

You're kidding yourself. They can and they do censor by creating algorithms which determine what gets seen when someone does a search. To imply that any ordering or omission of results that Google might choose to create cannot be considered censorship is not at all realistic.

 

Like it or not, we are ALL influenced by the contents and order of the results which our search engines return.

[Farrar]

As I pointed out earlier, Google's approach is based on logical fallacies. To believe that today's popular ideas are truth is quite naive.

 

To believe that people who make up news for money or who dream up conspiracy theories about pizza being a code word for selling child sex are somehow more reliable than (admittedly fallible, humanly biased) people who are trying to print the truth is way beyond naivety. It's purposefully pulling the wool over your own eyes. 

[RegGuheert]

To believe that people who make up news for money or who dream up conspiracy theories about pizza being a code word for selling child sex are somehow more reliable than (admittedly fallible, humanly biased) people who are trying to print the truth is way beyond naivety.

Feel free to create straw-man arguments, but I will call you on this fallacious approach every time.

[Farrar]

Feel free to create straw-man arguments, but I will call you on this fallacious approach every time.

 

What's the straw man here? Are you saying you're not defending fake news as being truth? Because your argument absolutely reads that way.

 

It's absolutely true that popular =/= true. But there are also absolutely falsehoods being peddled as real by fake news sites. And Google's choice to lessen the ranking of those sites is not endangering free speech.

[Charlie]

You're kidding yourself. They can and they do censor by creating algorithms which determine what gets seen when someone does a search. To imply that any ordering or omission of results that Google might choose to create cannot be considered censorship is not at all realistic.

 

Like it or not, we are ALL influenced by the contents and order of the results which our search engines return.

 

They get to censor all they want. That's their right just like it's Walmart's right to deny some manufacturers' toys shelf space in their stores. Google is not the state and they're not working on behalf of the state, and therein lies the difference. That's why I think "ministry" is an unreasonable analogy. I agree we are all influenced by the contents and order of the results which our search engines return. That's why I appreciate a more responsible rating algorithm from Google.

[Murphy101]

You're kidding yourself. They can and they do censor by creating algorithms which determine what gets seen when someone does a search. To imply that any ordering or omission of results that Google might choose to create cannot be considered censorship is not at all realistic.

 

Like it or not, we are ALL influenced by the contents and order of the results which our search engines return.

Ohhhh damn. I was with you until this.

 

I agree we are all influenced. Just like we are influenced by what and how a store is arranged.

 

But that's marketing. Not censorship.

 

Censorship implies a govt agency (or a proxy for the govt) is eliminating the ability to access something.

 

A business deciding to arrange it's store in a new way that customers think (possibly rightly) influences them to buy differently is not censorship. It's marketing.

[Murphy101]

They get to censor all they want. That's their right just like it's Walmart's right to deny some manufacturers' toys shelf space in their stores. Google is not the state and they're not working on behalf of the state, and therein lies the difference. That's why I think "ministry" is an unreasonable analogy. I agree we are all influenced by the contents and order of the results which our search engines return. That's why I appreciate a more responsible rating algorithm from Google.

There's no reason to think the new algorithm is more accurate at giving truthful or accurate news links.

 

The fallacies of their proposed algorithms was posted up thread.

[hornblower]

This is true.  Someone posted about WaPo posting Michael Flynn security advisor tweeted about pizzagate, as if that was comparable somehow?  It was in fact, his son, also named Michael Flynn, and they corrected and apologized. 

 

Different from just making up conspiracy theories and not caring if they are true, much less apologizing when people are hurt.

 

Flynn Senior ALSO spread conspiracy rumours & fake news . http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/politics/-michael-flynn-trump-fake-news-clinton.html

[RegGuheert]

The idea of gatekeeper only works if they have some authority to censor information, which they do not.

 

They get to censor all they want. That's their right...

Which is it?

 

Google is not the state and they're not working on behalf of the state, and therein lies the difference. That's why I think "ministry" is an unreasonable analogy.]I understand your position, but you seem to be denying that Google is under contracts from the U.S. government. We certainly cannot know the details of some of those contracts.

I agree we are all influenced by the contents and order of the results which our search engines return.

It doesn't sound like we are too far apart here. Perhaps your views are close enough to those of the management of Google that this appears more benign in your eyes. Edited December 7, 2016 by RegGuheert

[hornblower]

Google's algorithms are subject to manipulation. Coder & hackers know this & that's what is more scary. If you run a whole bunch of automated searches (literally thousands a minute) and then always choose to go certain sites, THOSE search results will increasingly be seen at the top of the results. 

Search engine optimization has been around for years but it's being manipulated to a much greater extent & now I believe it's moved into search engine manipulation. 

[Farrar]

Sigh.

 

No one believes in facts anymore.

[RegGuheert]

No one believes in facts anymore.

Time to trot out yet another straw man argument, I see.

[bibiche]

It's a post-fact world, Farrar. A confederacy of dunces.

[poppy]

Here is the key. Subscribe to your daily print newspaper.  Places that hire professional reporters.

Even if you live in a small market.... all journalists start somewhere.

 

[RegGuheert]

A confederacy of dunces.

Name calling? Another fallacy which has no bearing on the discussion.

[RegGuheert]

Here is the key. Subscribe to your daily print newspaper. Places that hire professional reporters. Even if you live in a small market.... all journalists start somewhere.

I wish it were so easy. Unfortunately, I believe that ship has sailed. Perhaps I'm wrong here...

[bibiche]

Name calling? Another fallacy which has no bearing on the discussion.

No, stating a fact.

[Charlie]

Which is it?

 

It doesn't sound like we are too far apart here. Perhaps your views are close enough to those of the management of Google that this appears more benign in your eyes.

 

 

Google is not the state nor does it speak for the state. Its operations doesn't qualify as a government "ministry," even if you don't know all the details.

[Murphy101]

It's a fact that people have become so fed up with pseudo news and bad reporting that they have become skeptical, possibly overly, of all sources.

 

That leads to a breakdown in information infrastructure due to a lack of any trusted conveyance.

 

These are genuine concerns. That I agree with.

[Barb_]

You're kidding yourself. They can and they do censor by creating algorithms which determine what gets seen when someone does a search. To imply that any ordering or omission of results that Google might choose to create cannot be considered censorship is not at all realistic.

 

Like it or not, we are ALL influenced by the contents and order of the results which our search engines return.

Which is why some dude just shot up a pizza place looking for sex slaves.

[Murphy101]

Which is why some dude just shot up a pizza place looking for sex slaves.

No. Being batshit is why some dude did that.

[Barb_]

I think Google has already begun reworking the algorithm. Until recently any number of benign searches would autocomplete into hate-speech or conspiracy theory territory. For example, "women should..." competed into "make me a sandwich" or "just shut up". "Muslims are" autocompleted into "evil" or "terrorists". I don't see that sort of thing anymore.

 

How is this a problem?

[Vida Winter]

If one is attempting to implement the Ministry of Truth into a society where free speech is a prized possession of most individuals, a full-frontal attack simply will not work. So what to do? One must convince the individuals in that society that people need to be protected from "fake" sources of information so that they do not become confused. And you need to convince each individual that this is not needed for them specifically, but rather it is needed for those other, poor, ignorant, defenseless people that cannot properly discern the truth from fiction.

 

In this way, those in power are attempting to silence their critics by having unfettered control over the flow of information to the masses.

 

If you think suppressing "fake news" is a good thing, please think again. It is simply a thinly-veiled attack on our freedom of speech. We need to fight vigorously against this ongoing movement to control the free flow of information.

 

Thank you for stating this.

 

Look closely at those who are accusing others of "fake news." They are the ones guilty of propaganda.

 

In other words, "He who smelt it, dealt it."