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

[Barb_]

No. Being batshit is why some dude did that.

Where do you think he got the idea?? Besides, I don't think he was crazy. He seemed actually to believe he was saving children. Seriously. believed it.

[Barb_]

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."

Can you spell that out using proper nouns rather than allusions? I'm not following you.

[hornblower]

No. Being batshit is why some dude did that.

 

I don't agree.

 

Believing a fake conspiracy story is the crazy part but on his side is the fact that it was spread by influential people, including some connected to the peotus. 

 

IF you believed that this was true, and you believed authorities were ignoring such a horrific thing and people needed rescuing, isn't it reasonable and brave to try to do something about it?  

 

In different circumstances the person would have been a hero.

 

He was alas a pawn in a misinformation game which is being played by the highest players in the land. 

[SKL]

I'm just curious how the logic works where it's OK for a private business that is an open discussion platform to censor, but it is not OK for a bakery to decline to decorate a same-sex wedding cake.

[Murphy101]

Where do you think he got the idea?? Besides, I don't think he was crazy. He seemed actually to believe he was saving children. Seriously. believed it.

Actually believing doesn't make him less crazy.

 

It's rather the sticking point of what makes it crazy.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Murphy101

[hornblower]

Can you spell that out using proper nouns rather than allusions? I'm not following you.

 

let me translate: 

 

Liberals are saying there was fake news. 

 

Liberals are the ones who made fake news. 

 

Conservatives don't believe there's fake news. There is no fake news. They were not fooled by some teenager from Macedonia or the entrepreneur in the US who raked in bucketloads of money of ad revenue from pushing fake news stories on totally fake news sites. That never happened. 

 

Only liberals are saying it happened and it's false. Because they make fake news stories, see?? 

 

 

[SKL]

I'm not too worried about private companies making their own rules.  There will always be another private company to take over where the others leave off.  I'm more concerned about the vibes I'm getting about Big Brother needing to come in and fix stuff.  No thank you.  And that includes Big Moneybags running things behind the scenes.

[RegGuheert]

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?

I have no problem with that, at all. It sounds like an excellent improvement to autocomplete. (Note that autocomplete in no way limits or changes the results that I might get when I type in the search terms I desire. Rather, it is based on the search terms that others have entered.)

[Tanaqui]

No. Being batshit is why some dude did that.

 

He didn't just come up with this idea out of the aether. Somebody told him this was true, probably lots of people, people he trusted.

 

[Tanaqui]

I'm just curious how the logic works where it's OK for a private business that is an open discussion platform to censor, but it is not OK for a bakery to decline to decorate a same-sex wedding cake.

 

Seriously? We just got everybody calmed down after the last time. Why are you trying to rile us all up again?

[SKL]

And "truth" is one of those amazing things that changes over time.  Someone reports a fact.  There are interests who want nobody to believe that fact, so they put a lot into trouncing the reporter and anyone who dares to consider the possibility of that fact.  Pretty soon it is accepted that the fact is not true.  Years later it re-surfaces as the truth again - because it is true.  It's always been true.

 

Of course there is fake news - that is nothing new.  It's also not new that some people believe ridiculous things.  But none of that changes the fact that truth is often attacked as untruth.

 

I think we need to let people figure it out for themselves.

 

As for "dangers," OK we have one nutso who has a history of doing other violent acts, caught threatening a business owner with a gun.  (Not particularly unusual in DC btw).  But the pizzagate stories on the web aren't encouraging violence per se.  In contrast, there are so many things on the web that do outright encourage violence, such as radical Muslim clerics encouraging or ordering jihad, other radical groups encouraging violence and mayhem etc.  Why aren't these censored, and why didn't this discussion even come up until recently, if we are so concerned about not allowing people to be influenced to do evil by the internet?

 

It's been suggested that the pizzagate stuff is being overblown by the media in order to distract from other substantive information released by wikileaks.

Edited December 7, 2016 by SKL

[RegGuheert]

let me translate:

 

Liberals are saying there was fake news.

 

Liberals are the ones who made fake news.

 

Conservatives don't believe there's fake news. There is no fake news. They were not fooled by some teenager from Macedonia or the entrepreneur in the US who raked in bucketloads of money of ad revenue from pushing fake news stories on totally fake news sites. That never happened.

 

Only liberals are saying it happened and it's false. Because they make fake news stories, see??

More straw man arguments?

 

I don't know anyone who believes any of the things you have written.

 

Try this:

 

Fake news exists. It has caused some bad things to happen. None of that justifies the trampling of the freedom of speech we enjoy in this country. Period.

 

Put another way: The medicine is WAY worse than the disease.

[hornblower]

I have no problem with that, at all. It sounds like an excellent improvement to autocomplete. (Note that autocomplete in no way limits or changes the results that I might get when I type in the search terms I desire. Rather, it is based on the search terms that others have entered.)

 

autocomplete is partly based on your search history if you're signed in. 

 

see here for details from google: https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/106230?hl=en

[Murphy101]

He didn't just come up with this idea out of the aether. Somebody told him this was true, probably lots of people, people he trusted.

And if it wasn't this, it'd have been something else. Note the thousands upon thousands of people that heard the same story and didn't decide to get a gun and go in to a pizza place shooting.

 

For what it's worth...

 

I had not heard this pizza story until this thread. I had no idea what was being talking about so I went to go look it up.

[hornblower]

More straw man arguments?

 

I don't know anyone who believes any of the things you have written.

 

Try this:

 

Fake news exists. It has caused some bad things to happen. None of that justifies the trampling of the freedom of speech we enjoy in this country. Period.

 

Put another way: The medicine is WAY worse than the disease.

 

I was responding to post #51 & others similar. 

 

 

FWIW, I'm not on the trample free speech side. 

[RegGuheert]

 

I was responding to post #51 & others similar.

 

 

FWIW, I'm not on the trample free speech side.

Sorry! I got confused. :blush:

[Slartibartfast]

It's still Libel.

 

It isn't actually ok to destroy a person's reputation and business. That isn't speech, we have laws for that.

[Slartibartfast]

I'm just curious how the logic works where it's OK for a private business that is an open discussion platform to censor, but it is not OK for a bakery to decline to decorate a same-sex wedding cake.

When you agreed to a user agreement when you signed up for the discussion platform.

[Murphy101]

 

I was responding to post #51 & others similar.

 

 

FWIW, I'm not on the trample free speech side.

I was so confused. Couldn't decide whether you were calling me liberal or conservative, but was somewhat sure either way I should feel insulted. 😄

[hornblower]

I'm not too worried about private companies making their own rules.  There will always be another private company to take over where the others leave off.  I'm more concerned about the vibes I'm getting about Big Brother needing to come in and fix stuff.  No thank you.  And that includes Big Moneybags running things behind the scenes.

 

I do understand what you're saying & I do share your concern. 

 

I think this is a HUGE problem. 

 

But the fact is that private companies already make rules - when it comes to search & how search engines work.

 

Search engine algorithms are not natural, kwim?  They're not bound by laws of nature. They're manufactured. They're coded to certain parameters. Some team of coders decided that this is how a search engine should work, this is what results it should give. 

 

What those parameters are, and  how they're being exploited by people for their own ends is the issue. 

 

 

I think we (citizens of western democracies) urgently need a crash course on search engines, data & information. Many people still don't know that their search history influences their search results. They're 'in a bubble' because they stay signed in, never clear their cookies or cache & when they search, their engines just give them more of what they had before. If you like looking at natural health remedies when you search for a symptom, you'll get increasingly more natural health sites. 

 

That's one huge issue with search engines.  Do you want search engines to tailor their results, to give you customized 'relevant' results? Or should they give the same results to everyone? 

 

 

And again, the bigger issue now is not that we as individuals are getting targetted results. It's that large computer programs are running to try to out manipulate the existing google parameters and get certain pages or sites to be returned on the main page when people search for certain terms.  

 

Should google take steps to prevent such manipulation of its algorithms? 

 

 

[goldberry]

I had not heard this pizza story until this thread. I had no idea what was being talking about so I went to go look it up.

 

Do yourself a favor and don't.  It's like falling down a rabbit-hole of weirdness.  And unsavory weirdness.

 

A world where pizza, breast milk, cannibalism, and child sex trafficking all come together involving men who keep statues of 8 foot tall naked men in their house....  Trust me, you don't want to go there!

 

Editing to add, yes, it is a made up conspiracy theory with no actual proof.  It's just so freakin' bizarre I'm not sure how it even fooled anyone.

Edited December 7, 2016 by goldberry

[Spy Car]

No, stating a fact.

 

Facts are stupid things ;)

 

Bill

[Barb_]

Actually believing doesn't make him less crazy.

 

It's rather the sticking point of what makes it crazy.

When you say crazy, I'm reading severely mentally ill. Isn't that what you mean?

[Barb_]

 

let me translate:

 

Liberals are saying there was fake news.

 

Liberals are the ones who made fake news.

 

Conservatives don't believe there's fake news. There is no fake news. They were not fooled by some teenager from Macedonia or the entrepreneur in the US who raked in bucketloads of money of ad revenue from pushing fake news stories on totally fake news sites. That never happened.

 

Only liberals are saying it happened and it's false. Because they make fake news stories, see??

 

 

Clearly I need to read more disutopian novels.

[Slartibartfast]

And "truth" is one of those amazing things that changes over time.  Someone reports a fact.  There are interests who want nobody to believe that fact, so they put a lot into trouncing the reporter and anyone who dares to consider the possibility of that fact.  Pretty soon it is accepted that the fact is not true.  Years later it re-surfaces as the truth again - because it is true.  It's always been true.

 

Of course there is fake news - that is nothing new.  It's also not new that some people believe ridiculous things.  But none of that changes the fact that truth is often attacked as untruth.

 

I think we need to let people figure it out for themselves.

 

As for "dangers," OK we have one nutso who has a history of doing other violent acts, caught threatening a business owner with a gun.  (Not particularly unusual in DC btw).  But the pizzagate stories on the web aren't encouraging violence per se.  In contrast, there are so many things on the web that do outright encourage violence, such as radical Muslim clerics encouraging or ordering jihad, other radical groups encouraging violence and mayhem etc.  Why aren't these censored, and why didn't this discussion even come up until recently, if we are so concerned about not allowing people to be influenced to do evil by the internet?

 

It's been suggested that the pizzagate stuff is being overblown by the media in order to distract from other substantive information released by wikileaks.

What makes you think people inciting violence are not censored? Do you see that happening somewhere? It gets banned from many social media platforms.

 

I don't really see how accusing a business of being involved with child sex trafficking and getting away with it isn't inciting violence. If someone thinks children are in immediate danger wouldn't one expect someone to intercede? The guy thought he was there to rescue children.

 

There wasn't much substance from Wikileaks, the most interesting bit was from Colin Powell's emails and that was because they are hilarious.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm just curious how the logic works where it's OK for a private business that is an open discussion platform to censor, but it is not OK for a bakery to decline to decorate a same-sex wedding cake.

 

Depends on the state.

 

Of course this topic has been explained time and time again on this board yet some of you still feign confusion.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

More straw man arguments?

 

I don't know anyone who believes any of the things you have written.

 

Try this:

 

Fake news exists. It has caused some bad things to happen. None of that justifies the trampling of the freedom of speech we enjoy in this country. Period.

 

Put another way: The medicine is WAY worse than the disease.

 

Speaking of strawmen...where is freedom of speech being abridged?  Please be sure to cite examples where it is a government body doing so or I will be forced to declare shenanigans.

 

[Murphy101]

When you say crazy, I'm reading severely mentally ill. Isn't that what you mean?

I said crazy and meant crazy. Crazy usually coincides with severely mentally ill, but not necessarily. I don't know if he was severely mentally ill or not, but I do know his actions were crazy.

 

The excuses being made for his actions could be widely applied.

 

Is terrorism just misunderstood mental illness?

 

Not everyone who does crazy awful things are mentally ill.

[Tanaqui]

Crazy usually coincides with severely mentally ill, but not necessarily. I don't know if he was severely mentally ill or not, but I do know his actions were crazy.

 

You seem to be using a rather idiosyncratic definition of "crazy". Unless I'm the only one who considers "crazy" and "severely mentally ill" to be synonyms.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Do yourself a favor and don't.  It's like falling down a rabbit-hole of weirdness.  And unsavory weirdness.

 

A world where pizza, breast milk, cannibalism, and child sex trafficking all come together involving men who keep statues of 8 foot tall naked men in their house....  Trust me, you don't want to go there!

But most of that is actually made up by internet trolls who are delighted by creating media havoc.

[Barb_]

And "truth" is one of those amazing things that changes over time. Someone reports a fact. There are interests who want nobody to believe that fact, so they put a lot into trouncing the reporter and anyone who dares to consider the possibility of that fact. Pretty soon it is accepted that the fact is not true. Years later it re-surfaces as the truth again - because it is true. It's always been true.

 

Of course there is fake news - that is nothing new. It's also not new that some people believe ridiculous things. But none of that changes the fact that truth is often attacked as untruth.

 

I think we need to let people figure it out for themselves.

 

As for "dangers," OK we have one nutso who has a history of doing other violent acts, caught threatening a business owner with a gun. (Not particularly unusual in DC btw). But the pizzagate stories on the web aren't encouraging violence per se. In contrast, there are so many things on the web that do outright encourage violence, such as radical Muslim clerics encouraging or ordering jihad, other radical groups encouraging violence and mayhem etc. Why aren't these censored, and why didn't this discussion even come up until recently, if we are so concerned about not allowing people to be influenced to do evil by the internet?

 

It's been suggested that the pizzagate stuff is being overblown by the media in order to distract from other substantive information released by wikileaks.

The difference is, fake news used to be sold in the checkout line. It wasn't pervasive like it is now. Hearing something false repeated from a variety of sources will mess with a person's discernment. I don't think it came up until recently because the impact on our family and friends and the fabric of our society and our ability to govern ourselves only became glaringly obvious just recently with the hatefulness and obvious lies that have gone mainstream. Edited December 7, 2016 by Barb_

[Barb_]

 

autocomplete is partly based on your search history if you're signed in.

 

see here for details from google: https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/106230?hl=en

It also was based on the popularity of other searches across the population.

[Murphy101]

Do yourself a favor and don't. It's like falling down a rabbit-hole of weirdness. And unsavory weirdness.

 

A world where pizza, breast milk, cannibalism, and child sex trafficking all come together involving men who keep statues of 8 foot tall naked men in their house.... Trust me, you don't want to go there!

Yuck. That explains why I didn't know about it. My knee jerk reaction to that kind of news, even if it's real, is to hide the source and keep on going without reading it.

 

Real life is sometimes too much stranger than fiction for me to stomach unless I am actively seeking an article for a specific purpose. So I select "hide all further" very frequently. After doing this consistently for over a year, my advertising offerings and feeds in general are almost entirely knitting related at this point. Thank God.

[RegGuheert]

Speaking of strawmen...where is freedom of speech being abridged? Please be sure to cite examples where it is a government body doing so or I will be forced to declare shenanigans.

Fair enough. It's not a civil rights violation unless it comes from the government. That doesn't make it right for Google to function in that capacity. As I indicated earlier, the response needs to be against Google if/when they implement policies which limit or distort our freedom of speech.

[goldberry]

Okay, where is this magic "hide all further" option?  I don't think I've ever seen it.

[hornblower]

It also was based on the popularity of other searches across the population.

yes, the link explains that. I was replying specifically to the comment that autocomplete was not based on the user's history. It is part of the algorithm. 

[Murphy101]

You seem to be using a rather idiosyncratic definition of "crazy". Unless I'm the only one who considers "crazy" and "severely mentally ill" to be synonyms.

That's not the only use. I think 2 and 6 would be my application in this thread.

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/crazy

[Barb_]

yes, the link explains that. I was replying specifically to the comment that autocomplete was not based on the user's history. It is part of the algorithm.

This thread is moving too fast. I think I was actually responding to an earlier post he made to me by bouncing off of yours, lol. I think I need to go to bed.

[hornblower]

Okay, where is this magic "hide all further" option?  I don't think I've ever seen it.

 

I think she means on facebook. If you're seeing someone sharing stories from a source you don't want to see anymore, just click the down arrow at the top right of the post & you can choose to "hide post" or "Hide ALL FROM..." 

[RegGuheert]

The difference is, fake news used to be sold in the checkout line. It wasn't pervasive like it is now. Hearing something false repeated from a variety of sources will mess with a person's discernment. I don't think it came up until recently because the impact on our family and friends and the fabric of our society and our ability to govern ourselves only became glaringly obvious just recently with the hatefulness and obvious lies that have gone mainstream.

I think this post gets at the heart of the matter.

 

But when lists of "fake news" sites include websites simply because they are from "the other side of the aisle" there is real reason for concern with the response.

[hornblower]

This thread is moving too fast. I think I was actually responding to an earlier post he made to me by bouncing off of yours, lol. I think I need to go to bed.

 

I have to walk my dogs :) 

[Amira]

Fair enough. It's not a civil rights violation unless it comes from the government. That doesn't make it right for Google to function in that capacity. As I indicated earlier, the response needs to be against Google if/when they implement policies which limit or distort our freedom of speech.

The point is that Google *cannot* limit or distort my freedom of speech. They do not have the power to do so.

 

It is possible that they could make it more difficult for me to widely disseminate my opinions, but that is not limiting my freedom of speech.

[RegGuheert]

This thread is moving too fast. I think I was actually responding to an earlier post he made to me by bouncing off of yours, lol. I think I need to go to bed.

  

I have to walk my dogs :)

Yep. Time to go kick the cat...

[Barb_]

That's not the only use. I think 2 and 6 would be my application in this thread.

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/crazy

It's only a bizarre and senseless thing to do if you understand there are no children in the non-existent basement. If you are convinced they are there by various people whose aim is to mislead you, then your actions become heroic and self-sacrificing and not the least bit bizarre.

[Barb_]

I think this post gets at the heart of the matter.

 

But when lists of "fake news" sites include websites simply because they are from "the other side of the aisle" there is real reason for concern with the response.

Link? For curiosity's sake?

[hornblower]

I think this post gets at the heart of the matter.

 

But when lists of "fake news" sites include websites simply because they are from "the other side of the aisle" there is real reason for concern with the response.

I know there are unreliable news sites on all spectrums.   The outrageously fake ones have tended to be on one side. A recent NPR story on this topic did hint at why - the fake stories about the conservatives didn't get much traction & so didn't generate enough ad revenue to be worthwhile.  

 

I can find the link to the story if anyone is interested... 

 

 

edited to add the link http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

 

Edited December 7, 2016 by hornblower

[RegGuheert]

It is possible that they could make it more difficult for me to widely disseminate my opinions, but that is not limiting my freedom of speech.

...and that is different from the function of the Ministry of Truth exactly how? O.K, it's (possibly, perhaps likely) not tied to the government. In many ways it could be significantly worse. At some point, they could control the direction of everything, making them the de facto government.

[goldberry]

Fair enough. It's not a civil rights violation unless it comes from the government. That doesn't make it right for Google to function in that capacity. As I indicated earlier, the response needs to be against Google if/when they implement policies which limit or distort our freedom of speech.

 

Google is there, and as noted is successful, for providing results that are actual useful to the majority of its users.  I don't consider it limiting free speech to bump those less useful results to the next pages.  Less facts/less reliability = less useful to *me*.

 

Credibility of the article is just one criteria.  There are plenty of other criteria already in use. Any criteria at all messes with a "neutral" result.  But that was why people liked Google better in the first place.  We didn't want pages and pages of neutral results, we wanted useful results. 

 

I'm totally with Murphy, it's not censorship, it's marketing.

[RegGuheert]

I know there are unreliable news sites on all spectrums. The outrageously fake ones have tended to be on one side. A recent NPR story on this topic did hint at why - the fake stories about the conservatives didn't get much traction & so didn't generate enough ad revenue to be worthwhile.

 

I can find the link to the story if anyone is interested...

 

 

edited to add the link http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

Sure, but some were just "aggressively" one-sided. It doesn't matter. OF COURSE, the other side will claim that some (or even most) of what is said or written on opposing sites is lies. That doesn't make it O.K. to surpress one side of an argument.

[Murphy101]

Okay, where is this magic "hide all further" option? I don't think I've ever seen it.

On FB

 

Click the arrow in the top right hand corner of their post and there is an option to "Hide all posts from (insert website name here).

 

There's also one for hiding advertisements/sponsors. Same thing with an upper right drop down arrow.

 

In general though? People need to learn the habit of signing out of ALL their accounts before leaving the page AND clearing their entire history after every use. They can also delete cookies in their devices/PC. It takes maybe 1-2 minutes.